• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Nader in...Again

WildCat said:
So, how many Nader supporters here would have voted for Hillary or Obama lacking a Nader candidacy?
Click to expand...

In order to solve this problem you need to break down the population into groups.

The first group always vote for the candidate of their choice, for example: "My grandfather voted Republican, my father voted Republican, my son votes Republican, and my grandsons will vote Republican too." The second group vote against a particular candidate, for example: "I'm not voting for Clinton ... a damn liberal!" The third group looks for the winning side and votes for that candidate, for example: "At the last moment I voted for Bush and he won!" The fourth group stays home because they don't find anyone appealing, for example: "They're all a bunch of damn crooks."

If you remove Nader, the first group will stay home and become nonvoters. The second group, the ones that always vote against the Democrat and always vote against the Republican, will simply switch to another third party candidate. The third group, if sane, will only vote for Democrat or Republican. So they don't count. And the fourth group we can eliminate because they don't vote for anybody, not even Nader.

So, eliminating Nader from the picture does not in any way, shape, or form help the Democrats. Indeed, getting rid of Nader might very well make things much worse for the Democrats. Much worse than they can possible imagine.
 
SezMe,

SezMe said:
You gotta be kidding me. You think the Dems and Reps control who sits in those debates? If so, you are miserably wrong.

The networks that put on the debates control the participants. Ron Paul was excluded from some Rep debates. Gravel and Kucinich were excluded from Dem debates. Those actions were NOT taken by the parties, they were taken at the behest of some empty suit in a corner office.
Click to expand...

In a way, they do control who sits in those debates. The Commission on Presidential Debates currently decides who does and does not particpate in these debates, and that commission was established in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties. In fact, the commission is run by former chairmen of both parties.

As for Nader, I believe that I understand why he is doing what he is doing, and I admire the man for all that he has done for this country. While I have been leaning towards Obama, I will seriously consider voting for Nader. I think that people not only underestimate his intelligence, but his dedication to democracy as well.

Jason
 
I saw Nader on C-SPAN Yesterday. As always, he speaks his mind. I don't think I agree with a single issue or platform he has (and if I do it is for reasons polar opposite of his) yet he most certainly is NOT an empty shirt. Therefore, given how much I hate McCain, Obama and Clinton, I may well vote for him just out of spite. Well, either him or Upchurch.
 
Solitaire said:
The first group always vote for the candidate of their choice, for example: "My grandfather voted Republican, my father voted Republican, my son votes Republican, and my grandsons will vote Republican too." The second group vote against a particular candidate, for example: "I'm not voting for Clinton ... a damn liberal!" The third group looks for the winning side and votes for that candidate, for example: "At the last moment I voted for Bush and he won!" The fourth group stays home because they don't find anyone appealing, for example: "They're all a bunch of damn crooks."
Click to expand...

False tetrachotomy.

There are also those who will vote for the candidate in the race who best matches their viewpoint. In fact, that group is larger than the people who will not vote if the candidate who best represents their viewpoint drops out.
 
MaGZ's political slogan:

"Don't Be Stupid, Be A Smarty,
Come and Join the Nazi Party!".
 
drkitten said:
False tetrachotomy.

There are also those who will vote for the candidate in the race who best matches their viewpoint. In fact, that group is larger than the people who will not vote if the candidate who best represents their viewpoint drops out.
Click to expand...

1547bb89a6a275f.gif


In the 2004 election approximately 122 million people voted, an increase of about 16 percent over the 2000 election where 105 million people voted. In the 2000 election about 50 million people voted Republican and 51 million people voted Democrat and about 4 million people voted for third party independent candidates. Naturally we would expect an equal 16 percent increase across all groups for the 2004 election. In other words in 2004 about 58 million people should have voted Republican and 59 people should have voted Democrat and about 5 million people should have voted for third party independent candidates.

When we look at the actual 2004 elections results, we get 62 million people voted for the Republicans, 59 million voted for the Democrats and the remainder of 1 million people voted for third party independent candidates. The Democrats got a natural increase of 8 million votes. If you notice that the dramatic decline in the third party independent voters then you would think the theory works. But the Republicans not only matched the Democrats increase of 8 million new voters, they also got an extra 4 million votes. The Democrats say that without Nader they should've got the majority of his votes, but they didn't!

I doubt very many third party independent voters wanted Bush over Kerry. I doubt very many of them even considered Kerry a viable alternative.

So what did they do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom