Nader for President in 2004

[Stone]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../index_np.html

Who's with me in thinking that Nader really needs to run in 2004? The Democrat and Republican candidates are virtually the same, right, so there's a need for a real left-wing candidate. They all support the war, they're all for varying sizes of tax cut, what's the difference? Go Nader!

------

(Honestly, though, anyone agree with me that a few major right-wing donors would be better off donating to the Green party campaign than to the GOP? I'd say that every Nader vote probably siphons off at least 70% of a vote from the Democrats. Given that, I wonder whether at some point right-wing voting dollars would be better spent promoting the Greens against the Dems than by promoting the Republicans against the Dems. It'd be a sort of two-pronged attack - fight against the Democrats for moderates on one side, and then eat away at the Democrats' left-wing base by promoting the Green party. Muahaha.)

[Johnny Nighttrain]

he's got my vote. although i know it's not gonna make a difference, just supporting him on getting the word out though.

[Tracer]

I wish I could be a cavilier about that but you're probably right. I still vote Green because I think I should vote for who I want, not for who I think will win.

[Stone]

God bless you.

[Spanky McGee]

Well, considering the fact that i got ass raped when i voted for gore last time, I might as well vote for Nader. I mean, he's not going to win or anything. That or vote for someone on the Communist party.

[Green]

Vote Green

[Rhydant]

Originally posted by Tracer


I wish I could be a cavilier about that but you're probably right. I still vote Green because I think I should vote for who I want, not for who I think will win.

see, thats the problem. if more people would vote for who they want to win, something big might happen. but instead, millions think to themselvs, "Well, Nader doesnt have much of a chance. so ill vote democrat/repulican and not waste my vote."

my first presidential vote will be for Ralph Nader, if he runs.

[Opaque]

Yeah Rhydant! Rock the vote or whatever... I'm gonna be like millions of other Americans and write in for Mickey Mouse...

[spacecowboy]

Holy crap! I know Stone didn't start this thread...I must be dreaming. Well I voted for Nader last time and since we've pretty much got the same people again, I'll vote for him again. Since Oklahoma doesn't have a statewide Green party, I can't register with them, but I am a memeber of the Cleveland County Green party. So I hope more people vote for Nader, should he run, because, if anything, it'll send a message to Washington that people are growing tired of Democratic/Republican ideology.

SC

[Wilykat]

Lately, the Democratic party has squandered away alot of the good graces I previously held towards it, and I'd like to see an actual progressive/left candidate get at least some serious support this upcoming election. Who would I vote for in the Democratic party in 2004, anyways? Dennis Kucinich I like, but he's an even farther shot than Nader.

+1 Nader.

[StriderKyo]

How could anyone not vote for Nader? He's in that Rage Against the Machine video and everything!

[Ichabod]

I saw this article earlier today, and I believe that the Green party really does need to shift much of it's focus to the state and local levels of government. If Nader does run though, the results might be interesting. With all of the events in the world since (and including) Bush's election, it seems like the vote could sway dramatically either way. Personally, I'll wait until the 2004 election before choosing who to vote for.

[Kinopio]

Originally posted by StriderKyo
How could anyone not vote for Nader? He's in that Rage Against the Machine video and everything!

He also said the word "asshole" and then rapped on Da Ali G show. If he runs again I'll vote for him. I like rooting for the underdog too.

[spacecowboy]

Originally posted by Ichabod
I saw this article earlier today, and I believe that the Green party really does need to shift much of it's focus to the state and local levels of government.

Traditionally, that's what the Green party has always been about, grassroot. Greens are still more active on the local level and only recently with Nader's campaigns have they shifted a little more of their focus to the national level. They're still strongest at the local level and being a member of a local chapter, I can safely say that all of our focus is on local politics.

SC

[Ichabod]

Originally posted by spacecowboy
Traditionally, that's what the Green party has always been about, grassroot. Greens are still more active on the local level and only recently with Nader's campaigns have they shifted a little more of their focus to the national level. They're still strongest at the local level and being a member of a local chapter, I can safely say that all of our focus is on local politics.

SC

Looking over the article again, I realize that I somewhat misinterpreted/misread one part:
"Moore, among others, has reportedly been advising Greens and other progressives to imitate what the Christian right did in the GOP -- to build a base within the Democratic Party by working to take over its moribund precinct organizations. Dugger says this influx of grass-roots energy is precisely what the listless, money-dominated party needs."

So, yeah, I'm for that.

[StriderKyo]

Originally posted by Kinopio
He also said the word "asshole" and then rapped on Da Ali G show.

Is it just me, or is that the best talk show of all time?

[station82o]

I'm hoping that there will be other candidates in this next election besdies Al Gore and Ralph Nader - just hoping...

[spacecowboy]

Originally posted by Stone
(Honestly, though, anyone agree with me that a few major right-wing donors would be better off donating to the Green party campaign than to the GOP? I'd say that every Nader vote probably siphons off at least 70% of a vote from the Democrats. Given that, I wonder whether at some point right-wing voting dollars would be better spent promoting the Greens against the Dems than by promoting the Republicans against the Dems. It'd be a sort of two-pronged attack - fight against the Democrats for moderates on one side, and then eat away at the Democrats' left-wing base by promoting the Green party. Muahaha.)

While I don't agree with Stone's reason for supporting the Green party, his idea is sound. Democrats aren't going to change if they don't see a need to. The Green party can make an impact if the Democrats see them as a viable contender for Democrat swing votes. Plus with the Green party becoming more and more like the "new" democratic party, an intiative to support them will only make the Democrats reveal their true colors- outdated and stagnant. So should this sort of thing work and the Democrats become the party that they should be, it might be worth it them and their voters if they lost this next election. It's kind of a dividing topic since no one really knows what will happen. If the Democrats change, would it be worth another 4 years of Bush? In my opinion, yes, but then again their is no guarantee they will change. It would be nice to see the Republicans change, but lets face it: Republicans are so set and closed in their ways, they'll never change. Man, I hate the two party system.

SC

PS. Station, Al Gore isn't running and does it really matter? It's not about the individual, it's about the ideology. Al Gore is the same as every other Democrat and Bush is the same as every other Republican. There is rarely (ie Clinton) a candidate that takes a third way.

[DarkCrow676]

What are Nadars platforms? I can't vote now, but I'm actualy looking forward to when I can. I am really dissapointed that Bush won and can't wait till 2004 in hopes of seeing him lose his title.

[Tommy Tallarico]

I voted for Nader in 2000, and I wouldn't take my vote back for anything. More people should vote for who they want to see in office, rather than the lesser of two evils.

[RedCoKid]

I vote for whomever inspires me: Nader in 2000 for environment and Perot in 1996 for balanced budget. I hate the Democratic candidates in the field right now. Gephardt is practically a Republican and will go with whatever is popular opinion, although my wife still likes him. I thought Kerry was better until I heard he voted for Bush's war plan in fall 2002. Lieberman is the worst. A waffler like Gephardt and Kerry, he'll sell out to Israeli PAC's (if he hasn't already), making peace in the Middle East less possible than even now.

I might've voted (& still might if it were a choice) for McCain. He speaks candidly and stays true to his principles.

[frostwolf ex]

[Nader is a joke, so long as poeple voted for him on "principle" then you just hand the victory over to the republicans. it is similar to when perot split the republicans and let the weasel into the white house in 92' I have no love for naer whatsoever, he does not impres me that he has the experience nor the true vison to lead america on that level, he should stay with activism where he is actually a positive force, not a polarizng left wing party with unrealistic views. unless mcCain runs instead of bush, i dont want to see nadar running because that will mean 4 more years of that failed legacy, rather than a real man, like mcCain. if bush runs i vote democrat for the first time in my life.

[RedCoKid]

I'd vote for Gary Hart if he runs. He's been openly critical of Bush all along.

edit: I like Tom Daschle, too (especially his comments before the war started ), although he said he's out.

So to sum it up, all the people I like--Democrat or Republican--aren't running.

[Cheebs]

Just a little sidetrack, but I find the whole Democrat/Republican thing pretty absurd. It's like Autobots and Decepticons or some similar cartoon setup where the sides oppose each other just because that's how the script is written. What the heck do parties even do? Wouldn't it be better to vote for someone not tied to one of only 2 different sets of ideas?

[station82o]

Originally posted by spacecowboy

PS. Station, Al Gore isn't running and does it really matter? It's not about the individual, it's about the ideology. Al Gore is the same as every other Democrat and Bush is the same as every other Republican. There is rarely (ie Clinton) a candidate that takes a third way.

That is good point yeah, and I should've thought out my post more before I made it. I think my problem lies in being discouraged - lack of understanding of complex issues today in governemt (i know how its run and the contrasting ideologies of liberals and conservatives - i just don't know whats currently going on - I try to educate myself a little bit here and there but its difficult to hold interest in it when I have so little time and so many other things to do and or on my mind.

Perhaps someone will think this is a lame excuse, and maybe it is but its the position I'm kinda stuck in. At the end of the day I couldn't honestly give a fuck because the one thing I've realized in the midst of all this is that we really don't have any individual power anymore.

[CynicalSphere]

Where I come from, people vote for the party and nothing more. Adolf Hitler himself could run for the Republican Party and people here would vote for him.

Hell, considering that this is a fucking Klan hotbed, a bunch of these people would probably vote Hitler anyway!

[Mman]

Eh...I probably will vote for Nader. I dont care if it does give Republicans the push.

Personally I agree with you guys...McCain should run. Many people have huge respect for him, including me. It does not matter that I agree w/ all his ideology, it is his convictions and his openness that impresses me.

[spacecowboy]

Why Bush won the Republican nomination instead of McCain baffles me. But I do know the reason. McCain campaigned heavily on issues that didn't seem important to common Americans, things like campaign finance. Should he try to oust Bush for the Republican nomination (which is a near impossibility) he needs to campaign on more mainstream issues instead of what he deems more important. Campaign finance reform is an important issue, but you aren't going to win an election with that as your base. I like John McCain a lot and would've preferred him over Bush or Gore.

RedCoKid- Gary Hart is pyscho! He's just to weird looking to be president. I agree with your consensus of the Democratic nominees, but of course Kerry would support a war plan, he's ex-military.

frostwolf- The whole reason Nader is running is to act as a polarizing force to draw Democrats away from the center and in effect draw Republicans away as well. That's the problem with weak parties, the try to please the swing voters in the middle instead of focusing on their main constituents (ie the staunch Democrats and Republicans). While some may say that Nader is running to win, I don't see it that way. Most 3rd party candidates really only act to try and realign the two main parties, at least on the national level. Local is a whole different game.

Originally posted by station82o
I think my problem lies in being discouraged - lack of understanding of complex issues today in governemt (i know how its run and the contrasting ideologies of liberals and conservatives - i just don't know whats currently going on - I try to educate myself a little bit here and there but its difficult to hold interest in it when I have so little time and so many other things to do and or on my mind.

That's a lot of people's problem, but then again it's not really their fault. The parties have become so weak that most people are just losing interest in politics, which is a shame because having informed citizenry is key to our system of government. Elite democrats will disagree with me, but I don't think that the elites should do the governing for everyone. The well-off folks are of course the ones who are more active in government because they have more free time to devote to this stuff and thus, their interests are more heavily looked after. It's the working class and the single parents who need to partake in more political affairs, but how can they when they are preoccupied with just surviving. More money = more leisure time = more time for politics = more attention paid to you. That's how things work in this country.

Edit: DarkCrow676, if you want some info on Nader, you can check out his website for the 2000 election. It'll have his platforms for that election there.

SC

[station82o]

Originally posted by spacecowboy



That's a lot of people's problem, but then again it's not really their fault. The parties have become so weak that most people are just losing interest in politics, which is a shame because having informed citizenry is key to our system of government. Elite democrats will disagree with me, but I don't think that the elites should do the governing for everyone. The well-off folks are of course the ones who are more active in government because they have more free time to devote to this stuff and thus, their interests are more heavily looked after. It's the working class and the single parents who need to partake in more political affairs, but how can they when they are preoccupied with just surviving. More money = more leisure time = more time for politics = more attention paid to you. That's how things work in this country.

SC

Yup - nail on head. The one thing I'll give myself a bit of credit for is that I'm at least trying to educate myself - unlike alot of other working class americans, I don't just sit like a bump on a log and watch American Idol and become mindnumbed (TNL does that for me - hehe j/king). But its always a struggle and it doesn't suprise me when I hear news reports of low voter turnout. It shouldn't suprise anyone... has apathy become a part of the American psyche?

[Stone]

Originally posted by spacecowboy
frostwolf- The whole reason Nader is running is to act as a polarizing force to draw Democrats away from the center and in effect draw Republicans away as well. That's the problem with weak parties, the try to please the swing voters in the middle instead of focusing on their main constituents (ie the staunch Democrats and Republicans). While some may say that Nader is running to win, I don't see it that way. Most 3rd party candidates really only act to try and realign the two main parties, at least on the national level. Local is a whole different game.

You have to run to please the swing voters, spacecowboy. Think of it this way:

You've got 3 people voting in our presidential election - Moonbeam Starshadow (Democrat), Parker Thompson III (Republican), and Joe-What-The-Fuck's-With-These-Political-Threads-I-Don't-Care.

We have two political parties, Democrats and Republicans. We're also assuming Joe will definitely vote. Also, and this is important - everyone remember you don't need 50% of the vote to win, you just need more than the other guy.

1st - Democrats focus on pleasing the left/staunch Democrats. Moonbeam is happy. Republicans try to please the swing voters. Parker isn't entirely happy, but Joe votes for the Republicans since he got focused on. Republicans win.

2nd - Democrats and Republicans focus on the center. Moonbeam and Parker are half-happy, and it's a toss-up who gets Joe and wins.

3rd - Democrats and Republicans both focus on pleasing their cores, the further left/further right. Moonbeam and Parker are happy, and Joe's left out in the cold - lost opportunity.

Now, enter the Greens, those wacky bastards:

4th - Democrats and Republicans both focus on the center. The Green party focuses on the far left. The Green party steals Moonbeam, Parker votes for the Republicans, and it's a toss-up who gets Joe. At worst there's a tie (1-1-1, Joe votes Democrat), and at best there's (1-0-2, Joe votes Republican), Republicans win.

5th - Republicans focus on the center. Democrats focus on the left, because can't focus on the center - they'll lose voters to the Greens. Moonbeam is happy because he has a left-wing Democrat party, and votes for the Democrats. The Republicans get Parker, and they also get Joe, since he's in the center. Republicans win.

THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN WIN A POLITICAL ELECTION IS BY WINNING THE SWING VOTERS. Voter turnout amongst your staunch supporters, ensuring that solid Republicans/Democrats actually vote (vs not voting at all) is important, but that's (hopefully) a given. Nader will never do anything for the Democrats other than hurt them by running for President - he'll either 1.) steal potential Democrats and increase the proportion of Republican voters or 2.) force the Democrats further away from the center, increasing the number of swing voters who go Republican.

The only way to effect left-wing change, if that's what you're looking for, is to shift the political center of the country - to make the average American more left-wing somehow. Giving the average American more political options will not do that. I don't know what will - I think you're too late, since I think Americans are smart enough on the whole to not buy into crap like what the Greens believe in.

I'm absolutely amazed at how few people understand this. Back when I was positively interested in the fortunes of the Democrat party, I used to hate Greens voters way, way, way more than I hated Republican voters. Republicans were a lost cause - who cares? The Greens were people who basically believed in the Democratic party, but were willing to deduct their vote from the Democratic toll, in doing so putting a Republican in power.

Anyways, I love the Greens, now. It's a party full of people who hate Republican policy that can't do anything but put Republicans into power. Optimally, the Greens will run every four years, forever, slowly inching closer to splitting the left-wing voter base in half with the Democrats. By that point, it'll be virtually impossible to defeat the Republicans.

They're particularly effective in a town like mine, full of stupidly left-wing politically-minded people. Voter turnout is probably significantly higher than the US average here in Ithaca, NY. The Ithaca Republicans look at two potential swing vote groups: Democrats who might vote for Republicans, and Democrats who might vote for the Greens. I can tell you that the Democrat/Green group is far, far larger - yet the effect is exactly the same for the Ithaca Republicans, every Green vote increases the proportion of Republican votes to Democrat votes. So, by increasing Green turnout in Ithaca, we can move the Republican party closer to parity with the Democrats. Pretty spectacular stuff.

----------

Other than that, I'm pretty impressed with how many Democrats don't understand how much of a Republican McCain is. He's not that different from Bush - and yet you've got people who say they'd vote for a Green also saying they'd vote for McCain. Crazy. It's almost too good to believe that the Republican party could in theory have both McCain and Giuliani in the chamber for 2008 - who the fuck could the Democrats put up against them?