28 replies to this topic

[Rov Judicata]

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.

[Delvo]

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.

[CJ AEGIS]

Go Nader!  I never thought I would say that.  :wideeyed:  

[Rov Judicata]

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. .

[Nick]

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.

[Godeskian]

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

[Delvo]

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.

[Bad Wolf]

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

[Norville]

Oh, why, why, why? Why can't he just go away?

[G1223]

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.

[GiGi]

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.

[Norville]

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?

[G1223]

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

[Bad Wolf]

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.  

[G1223]

Actually Lil last time  that they were a factor they worked against the administration. That was how we got Clinton.

[Bad Wolf]

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.

[G1223]

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.

[Norville]

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.

[Rhea]

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.

[G1223]

But will make the mistake of voting for Kerry