Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Ralph Nader is running for president

Election 2004 Ralph Nadar

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 10:32 AM

http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4312689/

Quote

WASHINGTON - Consumer advocate Ralph Nader told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday he will run again for the presidency, declaring that Washington has become “corporate occupied territory” and arguing there is too little difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.

Nader, who will turn 70 this week, said he contemplated retirement but decided against that. “I’ve decided to run as an independent candidate for president,” he announced on NBC’s “Meet The Press.”

“This country has more problems and injustices than it deserves,” Nader said, bemoaning a “democracy gap.” He said he needed to get into the race to “challenge this two-party duopoly.”

Ouch. This is definitely bad news for the Democrats. I think Bush is beatable, but it's not going to be easy... and with Nader sucking off votes, it's going to be incredibly difficult.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#2 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 11:09 AM

I don't believe he will suck away votes this time; he's too famous now among liberal voters as the guy who does exactly that.

Funny thing, though, if he were to do so... we could end up with FOUR Presidential elections in a row in which more than half of the counted votes were against the guy who wins.

#3 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 11:43 AM

Go Nader!  I never thought I would say that.  :wideeyed:  :blink:
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#4 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 11:54 AM

Delvo-- But there are enough who believes as he believes to make a real difference. Even 1% of the vote could have a massive impact on the coming fight. And good point about 4 elections in a row.

CJ-- Heh. ;).
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#5 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,137 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 12:00 PM

Delvo, on Feb 22 2004, 11:07 AM, said:

Funny thing, though, if he were to do so... we could end up with FOUR Presidential elections in a row in which more than half of the counted votes were against the guy who wins.
That doesn't really mean much.  Bush/Dukakis in '88 was the last time someone got above 50%, and then not by much (+3.4%)--plus there were no viable independants running. (Paul?  Fulani?)

What I think is really interesting tho . . . is we haven't had a big presidential victory (10% or more in the popular votes) since 1972 (Nixon vs. McGovern).

Nader's not going to garner much funding or support as an independant.  I don't blame him for Bush winning last election, As I feel it's terribly presumptious of Dems to assume that a majority of Nader's handful of supporters would've voted for Gore if Nader hadn't run.  To be blunt, I think a third would've voted for Gore, a third for Bush, and a third wouldn't have voted at all.  And when our candidates are so weak that they're grasping for a few hundred votes to shift the tide in an election and start picking on the weak 3rd party guy, pointing the finger, well look in the mirror.  The past 3 elections have only been so close because both candidates sucked and most Americans were trying to decide who they despised the least.  In fact, I'll bet a large number of votes were decided by the scientific process of "eeny meeny miney mo" or flipping a coin.

The Wikipedia has a nice rundown of past presidential elections here.

And, although they have links for 2004 and 2008, I'm sad to say the Wikipedia has not obtained results from the future.. ;)

-Nick

[Edit: Bush got Florida's electoral votes by a margin of 537 votes.  If Nader hadn't run, Gore might've won . . . if CNN hadn't declared a winner early, Gore might've won . . . if 537 Florida Democrats didn't get stuck at work late and didn't get a chance to vote earlier in the day . . . Or if the geriatrics in Brevard country could actually READ a ballot . . . We can point the finger at circumstances all we want, but the fact remains--Gore lost because most Americans didn't like EITHER candidate and really didn't give a sh*t when they cast their votes.]

Edited by Nick, 22 February 2004 - 12:06 PM.


#6 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 12:14 PM

interestingly enough, according to the BBC, there is even a 'don't run ralph' website

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#7 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 12:26 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Feb 22 2004, 10:52 AM, said:

But there are enough who believes as he believes to make a real difference. Even 1% of the vote could have a massive impact on the coming fight.
Ah, but if things turn out as it looks like they will, his all-important demographic group, the people who shriek at anything and everything associated in any way with a Republican or capitalism like a sugar-doped baboon in a cage made of electric fencing, doesn't need him this time; they've already got Kerry.

#8 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 01:19 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Feb 22 2004, 07:30 AM, said:

Ouch. This is definitely bad news for the Democrats. I think Bush is beatable, but it's not going to be easy... and with Nader sucking off votes, it's going to be incredibly difficult.
*sigh*...Short sighted.  That's all I have to say.  Well no, I also have *this* to say.  A vote for Nader might as well be a vote for Bush.

Lil
Posted Image

#9 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,502 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 01:27 PM

Oh, why, why, why? Why can't he just go away? :crazy:
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#10 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 01:41 PM

Becasue Gee he feels he has the right message.  Yeah I know silly thing we allow citizens to run for High office as long as they can legally do so.


Personally he has a snowballs chance at groundZero and I do nto really think of him as a issue for the election.

#11 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 01:44 PM

Well, the Greens didn't want him in their party after what happened last time.   As an Independent he still has to get on the ballot.  He probably can, but he isn't there now.

This should be interesting, even if he annoys me to no end.  The Presidental race has become such a circus the only thing to do is to go along with the ride.
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#12 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,502 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 01:52 PM

G (or maybe Gee), I'm just sick of the man. I'm not saying a thing about his *right* to run. Do I need to change my first post to explain that? :sarcasm:
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#13 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 01:56 PM

Do as you wish. I was tired of hearing the whine about  his making his choice.

#14 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 01:58 PM

NO one is talking about his right to run.  But the fact of the matter is this:  At the presidential level, either a Democrat or a Republican *is* going to win.  That's just the way it is.  I'm all for breaking the two party strangle hold on the office but the way is NOT to constantly try to start at the top.  A third party serious about making inroads in breaking the two party system needs to start at the municipal level and build support from the ground up.  From municipal they can try state and so on and so on.  This business of mucking up the works at the presidential level by deliberately playing spoiler is nothing more than a round about way of giving support to which ever party happens to be in office.   :whatsthat:
Posted Image

#15 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 02:00 PM

Actually Lil last time  that they were a factor they worked against the administration. That was how we got Clinton.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#16 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 02:03 PM

We got Clinton because the Bush campaign imploded on itself. Either way, what role did they play?  Did they win?  No.  They played spoiler.  And that's the ONLY role a third party will ever play until third parties figure out that starting at the top is a stupid idea.
Posted Image

#17 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 02:13 PM

Agreed. I would point out that "The Machine" has it's hands into grassroot groups and special interst groups. So a new group is going to have to in ways take over the local machine which is not likely to happen. If SF is anything like Indy. a local issue comes up and a say a issue comes up a city coucilman steps in to first be seen(He wants to be Mayor  someday or actually is trying to help) second to prevent it being a blackmark aginst the city's reputation.

They show up or check on arrests or shootings . They go the church meetingabout the drug problem in the community or the local police  neighborhood watch  meeting to hear what needs to be done.

So at the local level a third party is going to be stiffled  becasue the other two parties have the local level wrapped pretty good becasue it's their job to. They are elected or appointed and they will cultivate a person and  or group and then  fracture it to pull the issue into the party platform.

#18 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,502 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 02:18 PM

Quote

Do as you wish.

I usually do. Thanks for your permission. ;)

Quote

NO one is talking about his right to run. But the fact of the matter is this: At the presidential level, either a Democrat or a Republican *is* going to win. That's just the way it is. I'm all for breaking the two party strangle hold on the office but the way is NOT to constantly try to start at the top. A third party serious about making inroads in breaking the two party system needs to start at the municipal level and build support from the ground up. From municipal they can try state and so on and so on. This business of mucking up the works at the presidential level by deliberately playing spoiler is nothing more than a round about way of giving support to which ever party happens to be in office.

Surprise, I agree with this. Of course he has a right to run, and I'd *love* someone to be able to break the two-party stranglehold. But the last time he ran, he was a spoiler, and that's exactly what he's going to be again, joining the race at this stage. I used to respect the man, but am questioning his judgement. But maybe some respect him more *because* he's playing spoiler and interfering with the votes that one side might have got without him there, because it'll fragment the opposition votes enough that the party in office will find it easier to stay there.
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#19 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 03:13 PM

Delvo, on Feb 22 2004, 09:07 AM, said:

I don't believe he will suck away votes this time; he's too famous now among liberal voters as the guy who does exactly that.-
I agree with Gordon. So many people want Bush out that I don't think a lot of voters will make the mistake of voting for Nader and siphoning off votes again. I hope.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#20 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 22 February 2004 - 03:18 PM

But will make the mistake of voting for Kerry :whistle:



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election 2004, Ralph Nadar

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users