It's official, Nader's running

[Comanche]

Ralph Nader has run for president so many times that this is not news.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dphantom
Doubtful. He only pulled .3% of the vote in 2004. He is even less meaningful today.

In a very tight election though...

I hope you're right, but the fact of the matter is, Republicans aren't voting for Nader. So he's siphoning votes from the Democratic Nominee.

Yep... Pretty much 100% of any Nader votes are going to come from the Dem's pool.

Is this how dems justify themselves using their crony's in the courts to get Nader off the ballot? I find it incredibly arrogant that the dems think Nader is taking their votes. Nader is making a statement about the two party system when he runs, and the dems give credibility to it when they try to force him off the ballot.

 

[FoBoT]

will there now be NaderBots posting 20 threads a day about Nader?

 

[ProfJohn]

I believe Nader is running because none of the other candidates are anti-war enough for him.

There was a lot of news about this over the summer and such where I think he came right out and said he would run if the Democrats didn't run on a platform of ending the war.

I think he could but Obama in a bind by offering the anti-war folks someone else to vote for in November.

One side we will have McCain going after Obama for being against the surge and being to weak on defense and on the other side Nader will claim Obama is just another part of the 'pro-war' hawks with his comments on going into Pakistan etc etc.

This puts Obama in a tough spot, act to strong and lose the anti-war folks, act to weak and lose everyone else. Which will most likely force the Democrats to resort to saying 'a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain' and hope that Nader doesn't hurt Obama anyplace.

BTW remember that Nader cost Gore the election by taking a few thousand votes in Florida. A state like Florida or Ohio comes down to a few thousand votes and Nader could make the difference.

 

[trenchfoot]

nader reminds me of a spoiled rotten child that will habitually resort to loud public histrionics so that he can get bought off by the highest bidder with candy and ice cream.

i guess he needs another influx of funds to finance his pet projects.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I still have this theory that a lot of Republicans are coming out for these primaries and voting Obama just to get rid of Hillary.

Thats not even an intelligent comment!!
The Republicans would rather run against Hillary than Obama.....duh..

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I still have this theory that a lot of Republicans are coming out for these primaries and voting Obama just to get rid of Hillary.

It's not a theory, it's a fact. I was in Virgina/DC area last week, and the local paper was talking about lots independent/republican leaning people who never voted democrats went and voted Obama because of their problem with Clintons. I remember something about the exit poll indicated 10% of Obama's vote come from those type of people. Without those votes, he would still win, but wouldn't be that big a margin.

 

[JSt0rm]

in DC 90% vote democratic. I lived there for 4 years. I bet a lot of republicans that live in the district (that 10%) could be swayed to vote dem

 

[ranmaniac]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dphantom
Doubtful. He only pulled .3% of the vote in 2004. He is even less meaningful today.

In a very tight election though...

I hope you're right, but the fact of the matter is, Republicans aren't voting for Nader. So he's siphoning votes from the Democratic Nominee.

Yep... Pretty much 100% of any Nader votes are going to come from the Dem's pool.

Is this how dems justify themselves using their crony's in the courts to get Nader off the ballot? I find it incredibly arrogant that the dems think Nader is taking their votes. Nader is making a statement about the two party system when he runs, and the dems give credibility to it when they try to force him off the ballot.

Kind of like how the Republicans made sure the Reform Party couldn't be a factor in the debates after the 1992 election after Perot cost Bush from being re-elected.

 

[compuwiz1]

Nader runs as a side show or distraction. He has never thought for one minute he's ever had a chance of winning.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I believe Nader is running because none of the other candidates are anti-war enough for him.

There was a lot of news about this over the summer and such where I think he came right out and said he would run if the Democrats didn't run on a platform of ending the war.

I think he could but Obama in a bind by offering the anti-war folks someone else to vote for in November.

One side we will have McCain going after Obama for being against the surge and being to weak on defense and on the other side Nader will claim Obama is just another part of the 'pro-war' hawks with his comments on going into Pakistan etc etc.

This puts Obama in a tough spot, act to strong and lose the anti-war folks, act to weak and lose everyone else. Which will most likely force the Democrats to resort to saying 'a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain' and hope that Nader doesn't hurt Obama anyplace.

BTW remember that Nader cost Gore the election by taking a few thousand votes in Florida. A state like Florida or Ohio comes down to a few thousand votes and Nader could make the difference.

Whoa, I completely forgot about that. :disgust:

No one really cares about Nader anymore, so Obama doesn't even have to acknowledge his existence. His only competition is McCain. The guy was meaningless in an election between George Bush and John Kerry. You really think he'll be a factor in an election between McCain and Obama?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Nader is nothing...

Wait until Bloomberg jumps in.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
will there now be NaderBots posting 20 threads a day about Nader?

Nader supporters don't know how to use computers.
Even if they did, they don't have electricity.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I believe Nader is running because none of the other candidates are anti-war enough for him.
-snip-

I caught his interview with Russert. While he did mention the "war", mostly he seemed to talk about big corprate ownership of Washington DC - ownership of both the Dem & Repub parties. He also railed a lot against the two party system.

What he was saying struck me as something many here on the Left would agree with.

Re: His chances to win. Russert pushed him pretty hard on being a "spoiler". He claimed that the Dems outta win in a landslide and if they can't they outta wrap it and go home. Come back after they reinvent themselves. Didn't sound to me like he thought he could win.

Aside from that, I don't gather he cares much for the Dem party anyway.

Fern

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dphantom
Doubtful. He only pulled .3% of the vote in 2004. He is even less meaningful today.

In a very tight election though...

I hope you're right, but the fact of the matter is, Republicans aren't voting for Nader. So he's siphoning votes from the Democratic Nominee.

Yep... Pretty much 100% of any Nader votes are going to come from the Dem's pool.

Is this how dems justify themselves using their crony's in the courts to get Nader off the ballot? I find it incredibly arrogant that the dems think Nader is taking their votes. Nader is making a statement about the two party system when he runs, and the dems give credibility to it when they try to force him off the ballot.

Kind of like how the Republicans made sure the Reform Party couldn't be a factor in the debates after the 1992 election after Perot cost Bush from being re-elected.

Exactly.

 

[yuppiejr]

Woot, good news... good news... Between the Hillary/Obama grudge match and Nader jumping into the fray I'm feeling pretty optimistic. At the local level there's a huge groundswell of support for local Republican candidates and the message I'm hearing is "elect Republicans first, replace them with conservatives later if need be." McCain, while wishy washy and moderate to most conservatives, is still a better choice than anything the Clinton machine or "hope-change" Obama train bring to the table.

 

[ericlp]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI.../25/nader/#cnnSTCVideo

Brings up some pretty going points about Obama tho.... Obama never really discusses any issues... He avoids them.... He is all for change ... But never really goes in depth on how he plans to implement the change. Amazing really.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
At the local level there's a huge groundswell of support for local Republican candidates and the message I'm hearing is "elect Republicans first, replace them with conservatives later if need be." McCain, while wishy washy and moderate to most conservatives, is still a better choice than anything the Clinton machine or "hope-change" Obama train bring to the table.

LOL :laugh:

 

[piasabird]

All would be dictators are for change. They want to get rid of whoever is in charge. However, it is hard to say who is in charge in the Bush Administration, because no one tells us anything. No leadership vs No ability.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dphantom
Doubtful. He only pulled .3% of the vote in 2004. He is even less meaningful today.

In a very tight election though...

I hope you're right, but the fact of the matter is, Republicans aren't voting for Nader. So he's siphoning votes from the Democratic Nominee.

Yep... Pretty much 100% of any Nader votes are going to come from the Dem's pool.

Is this how dems justify themselves using their crony's in the courts to get Nader off the ballot? I find it incredibly arrogant that the dems think Nader is taking their votes. Nader is making a statement about the two party system when he runs, and the dems give credibility to it when they try to force him off the ballot.

Are you serious? Do you think (R)'s are going to vote for Nader in droves? The common sense answer is 'No'. Do you think Nader actually thinks he can beat Hillary or Obama? Again, the common sense answer is 'No'. So if Nader is going to jump in knowing he can't win and he's only going to siphon votes from the (D)'s - what's his point?

Nader helped GWB beat Gore before so I think the 'A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain' statement is correct.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Woot, good news... good news... Between the Hillary/Obama grudge match and Nader jumping into the fray I'm feeling pretty optimistic. At the local level there's a huge groundswell of support for local Republican candidates and the message I'm hearing is "elect Republicans first, replace them with conservatives later if need be." McCain, while wishy washy and moderate to most conservatives, is still a better choice than anything the Clinton machine or "hope-change" Obama train bring to the table.

Don't you mean McCain, while borderline senile, has an (R) next to his name so that makes him better than any (D) regardless of age, positions, policies, etc?

 

[Fern]

Nader responded to the question of "siphoning" votes.

On Russert's show he said exit polling showed (something like this, can't remember exactly):

1. 25% would voted repub if nader didn't run.
2. 39% would have voted Dem
3. The rest wouldv'e stayed home and not voted at all.

Fern

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
At the local level there's a huge groundswell of support for local Republican candidates and the message I'm hearing is "elect Republicans first, replace them with conservatives later if need be." McCain, while wishy washy and moderate to most conservatives, is still a better choice than anything the Clinton machine or "hope-change" Obama train bring to the table.

LOL :laugh:

I caught that too, hilarious and sad at the same time.

Dear National Republican Party, the conservative voter wants their party back. It's been long hijacked by thugs, goons, and hacks. Give us our Eisenhower, take your Bushes and McCains and stick them where the sun don't shine.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
At the local level there's a huge groundswell of support for local Republican candidates and the message I'm hearing is "elect Republicans first, replace them with conservatives later if need be." McCain, while wishy washy and moderate to most conservatives, is still a better choice than anything the Clinton machine or "hope-change" Obama train bring to the table.

LOL :laugh:

I caught that too, hilarious and sad at the same time.

Dear National Republican Party, the conservative voter wants their party back. It's been long hijacked by thugs, goons, and hacks. Give us our Eisenhower, take your Bushes and McCains and stick them where the sun don't shine.

I want the conservative part of the Republican party back too. Both Bush's have been little short of a disaster for us. But especially the current Bush. Scandal, corruption, spending like a drunken sailor, failure to put national security interests first (the border) and so forth all mean I am ready for change. McCain is not it. Just more of the establishment party to busy trying to be nice to the dems when what is needed is a return to Reagan conservatism.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dphantom
Doubtful. He only pulled .3% of the vote in 2004. He is even less meaningful today.

In a very tight election though...

I hope you're right, but the fact of the matter is, Republicans aren't voting for Nader. So he's siphoning votes from the Democratic Nominee.

Yep... Pretty much 100% of any Nader votes are going to come from the Dem's pool.

Is this how dems justify themselves using their crony's in the courts to get Nader off the ballot? I find it incredibly arrogant that the dems think Nader is taking their votes. Nader is making a statement about the two party system when he runs, and the dems give credibility to it when they try to force him off the ballot.

Are you serious? Do you think (R)'s are going to vote for Nader in droves? The common sense answer is 'No'. Do you think Nader actually thinks he can beat Hillary or Obama? Again, the common sense answer is 'No'. So if Nader is going to jump in knowing he can't win and he's only going to siphon votes from the (D)'s - what's his point?

Nader helped GWB beat Gore before so I think the 'A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain' statement is correct.

I'm sure Nader has no illusions of winning, and he obviously does no favors for the Democratic party, but he nonetheless has every right to run in order to bring attention to his cause. The democratic party is not the rightful owner of any persons vote who considers themselves left of center, just as the Republican party isnt the rightful owner of every conservative leaning person. That mindset is what is wrong with politics in this country.