Nader in...Again

[Axiom_Blade]

Greetings and salutations, from my universe to the alternate one you occupy.

Polls in 2000 showed that the breakdown of his support was 25% Republican, 38% Democrat, and the rest were "people that wouldn't have voted otherwise."

Democrats aren't interested in stuff like this, though. They just go "Nader cost us the election! BAWWWWWWW" and then work to keep him off the ballots through lawsuits and any other kinds of dirty tricks they can come up with. Pretty ironic that a party that has "Democratic" right in its name would engage in such un-democratic behavior.

 

[UserGoogol]

Polls in 2000 showed that the breakdown of his support was 25% Republican, 38% Democrat, and the rest were "people that wouldn't have voted otherwise."

I'm not sure if those statistics are actually true, but even assuming they are, Nader would still have cost the Democrats the election; a net 13% of Nader's vote going to the Democrats would have been enough to win Florida. That said, since things were so close, (officially, 537 votes made the difference in Florida, and Florida wasn't the only close state) the election could have turned on a butterfly flapping its wings in Paraguay, so it's hard to place too much moral culpability specifically with Nader. But it's still something.

Democrats aren't interested in stuff like this, though. They just go "Nader cost us the election! BAWWWWWWW" and then work to keep him off the ballots through lawsuits and any other kinds of dirty tricks they can come up with. Pretty ironic that a party that has "Democratic" right in its name would engage in such un-democratic behavior.

I concur. I'm not sure that I want Nader to run, but in so far as he does run, the political parties should not do "dirty tricks" to prevent him getting on ballots, and he should be allowed to speak at debates and stuff.

 

[meg]

My favorite response to Nader's announcement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIFEceopAUI

 

[Axiom_Blade]

So, how many Nader supporters here would have voted for Hillary or Obama lacking a Nader candidacy?

If I say I would, will you count that as evidence for the Democrats' argument that Nader shouldn't be allowed to run?

I disagree with Ron Paul on many things, but I still whole-heartedly defend the man's right to run for president. The thing that makes Nader unique among political candidates is that his opponents don't oppose him on issues...they oppose his right to run at all! It has become the Democratic Party's strategy in recent years to fight Nader and the Green Party tooth and nail for ballot access in every state. Does this strike you as an honest and fair approach to such a problem?

Should we only allow Democrats and Republicans ballot access to prevent "spoiling"? Or should we reform our electoral system to level the playing field, and allow a greater diversity of voices?

 

[gtc]

I hope McCain paid him well.

McCain's had a pretty good weekend; what with this and the NYT persuading the arch-conservatives to get behind him.

There will be extra donuts at NWO headquarters on Friday.

 

[WildCat]

If I say I would, will you count that as evidence for the Democrats' argument that Nader shouldn't be allowed to run?

No, I'd take it as evidence that maybe Nader really is siphoning off Dem votes. I hope even more loons run for POTUS, it keeps this section interesting!

The thing that makes Nader unique among political candidates is that his opponents don't oppose him on issues...they oppose his right to run at all! It has become the Democratic Party's strategy in recent years to fight Nader and the Green Party tooth and nail for ballot access in every state. Does this strike you as an honest and fair approach to such a problem?

No, it doesn't. But I have never thought that the Dems supported anyone's right to vote for anyone except Democrats, so it really doesn't surprise me.

Should we only allow Democrats and Republicans ballot access to prevent "spoiling"? Or should we reform our electoral system to level the playing field, and allow a greater diversity of voices?

Could you start in Chicago? You know the Dems here have it set up so that you need 50,000 signatures to get on the ballot for Mayor?

 

[SezMe]

It would be nice if having Nader running would force the others to address the issues he will raise, but it won't. He will not be allowed to debate the others and neither will any other third party. Unfortunetly, he can and will be comfortably ignored by both the Republicans and the Democrats.

I'd be a lot more willing to listen to Nader if he did something other than run for the presidency. If he really wants to be heard and to have a political impact, he should have spent the last few decades building a party (Greens or his own), running for, say, the House or Senate and getting others to join him. But he has not done that.

So him getting some national face time to announce his candidacy is a non-event for me. So what? Just because he says he's a candidate doesn't automatically give him access rights. If I announce I'm a candidate I won't get in the debates. The many other already announced candidates don't get on stage.

This situation is OK by me. I think you need some minimum level of support and organization in order to compete. Otherwise the debates will include, literally, dozens of people and be one big joke.

 

[Policenaut]

If anyone saw the interview with Tim Russert it was fairly obvious he didn't like Nader and didn't have much to say to him. I thought it was insulting that Russert basically asked questions that just marginalized Nader. He's got a right to be in the race. Unless we should just get rid of all the small parties and just announce that it is a strictly 2 party system. Screw off if you aren't a Democrat or Republican because we don't care what you think. And this is coming from someone that would never vote for Nader. I think the best part of the interview was at the end when they were going to commercial before switching topics. Usually Russert is talking to the guest and they are smiling and happy but instead Tim is shuffling his papers not saying a word and Nader is just looking around silently wondering why Russert was such an a-hole.

And btw pretty much everything Nader said was true. Russert seemed stunned by a lot of the replies and didn't have any comebacks.

 

[MaGZ]

And what, exactly, are his positions? His web site lists 12 issues, all of which could fit on a bumper sticker. No details at all on what these slogans actually entail. He is by far the shallowest, most soundbite-driven candidate yet. But maybe Naders supporters don't need those annoying details before they throw him their unwavering support?

I like this one:

Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East

 

[gtc]

I like this one:

Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East

So.

Encourage Syria to interfere in Lebanon;

Support Iran's nuclear weapon program;

Mildly support Israeli incursions into Lebanon;

Mildly support Saudi violations of human rights;

Support Hamas over the P.A;

Encourage rocket attacks on Israel;

etc, etc.

Gee, I guess policy by bumpersticker may not be the best idea.

 

[MaGZ]

I think the best policy in the Middle East would be to dump Israel and recognize Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and improve relations with Syria.

 

[fuelair]

I think the best policy in the Middle East would be to dump Israel and recognize Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and improve relations with Syria.

I have always and will continue to recognise Hamass and Hizbllsht ....as targets for free fire. Certain Iranians qualify (as does anyone in the chain that took EFPs from England to Iran).

 

[Axiom_Blade]

This situation is OK by me. I think you need some minimum level of support and organization in order to compete. Otherwise the debates will include, literally, dozens of people and be one big joke.

This is a straw man argument.
I don't think even Nader would argue that any random dude should be able to just decide to run for president and be allowed equal debate time with McCain, Obama, and Clinton.

The debate is over what that that "minimum level" of support and organization should be, and why the two major parties get to be the gatekeepers in this process. Conflict of interest much?! Do you think that the Dems are going to allow a third party candidate into the debates, if that person represents a threat to their power? Every election, somebody runs a poll asking if Nader should be allowed in the debates, and a majority always says that they do. The people want to hear what he has to say. The two parties do not want them to hear that.

 

[SezMe]

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.

 

[FM21.105]

So who's going to make the "Nader Deathwatch" thread?

 

[Puppycow]

Polls in 2000 showed that the breakdown of his support was 25% Republican, 38% Democrat, and the rest were "people that wouldn't have voted otherwise."

And, in fact, that was indeed enough to make the difference.
Do you think Al Gore would have invaded Iraq?

 

[Puppycow]

Nader got 2.7% of the vote in 2000, and was relevant, but only 0.3% in 2004 and was irrelevant. All I hope is that he's irrelevant again.

 

[IchabodPlain]

I'd be a lot more willing to listen to Nader if he did something other than run for the presidency. If he really wants to be heard and to have a political impact, he should have spent the last few decades building a party (Greens or his own), running for, say, the House or Senate and getting others to join him. But he has not done that.

Even when I used to agree with his positions, that pretty much summed it up for me.

 

[Puppycow]

What would be great is if Pat Buchanon ran again.

 

[Haywire]

Nader is like Pat Paulsen, but without the sex appeal.