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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by: FoBoT
will there now be NaderBots posting 20 threads a day about Nader?
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I believe Nader is running because none of the other candidates are anti-war enough for him.
-snip-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.