Ralph Nader in 2004?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Whether or not you think Nader cost Gore the election is relevant, whether or not you think Bush stole the election isn't.

[Guest EricMM]

Look, people.

 

If Nader stole that many votes, MAYBE Gore should get a clue and lean more towards the Green party. Be less of a Republocrat. It's not Naders fault that people chose him over Gore, it's GORE'S FAULT!!!!!!!!

 

And he didn't hurt the environment, Bush did. Don't put the blame on Nader.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

If they had voted for Gore and not Nader, Gore wouldn't have hurt the environment like Bush did. So, in effect, they worsened their cause by voting for their man. They knew he had no chance to win, and it was stupid and selfish for Nader to run in 2000 without building up a base of support on the local and congressional levels.

[Guest Some Guy]

One could argue that if Gore went more Green then he would've lost the more independants and Bush would have gotten more votes. It's actually more likely that that would've happened. Gore just fucked up, he should have won by a ton, he lost, shit happens, life goes on.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Why was it selfish for Nader to run. If he felt he could do a better job than Gore, why not run? Like I said before, Gore came off a hot eight years as Vice President. The country's mindset was positive. Clinton had his haters, and that small group scared Gore off from using him during his campaign and it hurt. It had the OPPOSITE affect he thought it would. He basically ran a platform of, "hey I don't cheat on my wife, watch me kiss her in public" and was hoping he could win over voters like that.

 

If you feel it was selfish for Nader to run, then do you think me as a person who voted for Nader am also selfish? Maybe the Democrats should stop being Republicrats and start getting an identity of their own. Does this mean they have to fall down and obey the Green agenda, NO, but they should be leaning more left than they did from 2000 on. They aren't winning ANYONE over by being moderates, the mid-terms showed that clearly. They just need to open their mouths and talk about their agenda. Get it out there.

[Guest MrRant]

I will never vote Green just because of whacko enviromentalists.

[Guest Vyce]

Why was it selfish for Nader to run. If he felt he could do a better job than Gore, why not run? Like I said before, Gore came off a hot eight years as Vice President. The country's mindset was positive. Clinton had his haters, and that small group scared Gore off from using him during his campaign and it hurt. It had the OPPOSITE affect he thought it would. He basically ran a platform of, "hey I don't cheat on my wife, watch me kiss her in public" and was hoping he could win over voters like that.

 

If you feel it was selfish for Nader to run, then do you think me as a person who voted for Nader am also selfish? Maybe the Democrats should stop being Republicrats and start getting an identity of their own. Does this mean they have to fall down and obey the Green agenda, NO, but they should be leaning more left than they did from 2000 on. They aren't winning ANYONE over by being moderates, the mid-terms showed that clearly. They just need to open their mouths and talk about their agenda. Get it out there.

I agree in part, and dissent in part.

 

Virtually ever liberal friend I have - literally dozens of them - voted for Nader in the past election. Many of those (and they are DIEHARD liberals) have expressed to me that the would NEVER have voted for Gore, and that Nadar was the only candidate that even halfway expressed a viewpoint they felt they could support.

 

So maybe it wasn't so selfish of Nadar to run after all. Tyler apparently feels otherwise.

 

I disagree, though, about the "Democrats need to lean more to the left". Leaning too much to one side will hurt ANY candidate out there, but it will damage the Dems even more.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The Green party will NOT win a presidential election until they build their party from the bottom up. Thus, running a PRESIDENTIAL candidate is a selfish act that only takes voters away from a far more benevolent (if not activist) party to their views.

[Guest MrRant]

Saying that a party is benevolent is ignorant. If you are taking about the Dems they certainly aren't benevolent to me IMO. They may be considered so because your causes match up with theirs just like the Reps could be considered benevolent to those whose causes match theirs (rich people).

 

After all the Nazi party could be considered benevolent towards the German/Aryan people.

 

Benevolent:

Characterized by or suggestive of doing good.

Of, concerned with, or organized for the benefit of charity.

 

Edit: Excuse the rambling. Getting off work so typing it quick.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Sure, but if you were to call the Republican party benevolent to their issues (THE ENVIRONMENT), you're an utter fool. At least the Democrats have a semblance of goodwill towards environmental policy.

[Guest Powerplay]

The Green party will NOT win a presidential election until they build their party from the bottom up. Thus, running a PRESIDENTIAL candidate is a selfish act that only takes voters away from a far more benevolent (if not activist) party to their views.

This is exactly right. If you lack any big Congressional seats (Do they even have one?), you think you'll ever win for Presidency? Gotta start small and build up, but hey, noone today is willing to wait a few God-damn years for any results to occur.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

One could argue that if Gore went more Green then he would've lost the more independants and Bush would have gotten more votes.

I actually agree with SomeGuy here (whoa, that's new. ) Going more Green could have cost Gore votes with the centerists.

 

Saying that Nader screwed up Gore's chances is a little chancy, since we don't know how many people in Florida voted Green. I think it's a good possibility that in some states that went to Bush, the votes for Nader and Gore were greater than Bush.

 

In Florida though, a big problem was the stupid folk voting for Pat Buchannan by mistake. With the results turning out as they did, I think it's alright to say that Nader and Buchannan screwed up Gore's run equally.

 

 

However, Buchannan wasn't doing anything intentional, it was the design of the ballots and he can't be held responsible for that. But Nader can be held responsible for his decision to run:

"He's congenitally unintimidated. The Gore campaign came to him and said, 'Drop out and we'll make sure your organizations get funded. If not, we'll smash you.' It was just like the Mafia. But it just strengthened his resolve."

[Guest NoCalMike]

Didn't Nader say from the start though, that his goal was not to win the presidency, but to just get enough votes so he can get federal funding in 2004 and be allowed to participate in the debates? He wasn't out there with the goal to sabatoge Gore's chances. Hell, out here in CA, my meansly vote for Nader meant nothing for or against Gore/Bush in the bigger picture, and if the election would have been held up lawfully and just, then Gore STILL would have won. Only difference between someone like Nader and someone like Ross Perot, is oh umm, say.......about 10 billion dollars. Nader just wants an even playing field, that's all.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

That's why I endorse Instant Runoff Voting, and you should, too.

 

Yes, it all came down to Florida in 2000, as many of the "flyover states" went to Bush. What I'm saying is, in those smaller states, perhaps the Gore + Nader numbers exceeded the Bush numbers. So while Nader had nothing to do with the Florida mishap, he may be somewhat responsible for the entire thing resting soley on Florida.

 

An interesting aside, as the 1Wrestling line of the SD report says the Tennesee crowd booed the vision of Boy George in the Mr. America promo. Not only is this odd because of Nashville's southern heritage, AND because wrestling itself has been trying to attract conservative rednecks with shit like the Nowinski debate, but also because Tenesee wound up going to Bush. Remember all the shit about how Gore couldn't win his own state?

[Guest BDC]

Okay, you said something was odd about that, but could you restate it? For some reason, I'm not following you.

[Guest MD2020]

Remember all the shit about how Gore couldn't win his own state?

 

What are you talking about? Gore cleaned up in Washington, DC.

 

*rimshot*

 

Thanks. I'll be here all week.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Okay, you said something was odd about that, but could you restate it? For some reason, I'm not following you.

A wrestling crowd in a rather conservative state booed Bush. I find that amusing. I even marked it as an off-topic aside. Sorry.

[Guest Some Guy]

The Green party will NOT win a presidential election until they build their party from the bottom up. Thus, running a PRESIDENTIAL candidate is a selfish act that only takes voters away from a far more benevolent (if not activist) party to their views.

Ummm. Don't you think that Nader was trying to get his name and ideas back out in the public sprectrum? And being a relatively major Pres candidate tends to help. Nader is the only famous Green guy because he wrote a book about how much he hates cars decades ago. He was teh biggest naem and got he message out, now The Green candidate or Governor in MA finished 3rd and had about 3 or 4% of the vote. I doubt she would have gotten that much before Nader ran.

 

Are you Dems ever going to forgive the guy for running for Pres? Perot screwed Bush up, we got over over it and we got Billy Jeff for 8 years.

[Guest EricMM]

Again, can i say, that running for election should be about issues not a popularity contest.

 

If Gore had been good enough, he would have won, case closed. Jesus Christ.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Well if the democrat voters did their homework maybe they would sway and vote third party.

I think it's time to trot out the Instant Runoff Voting option again.

 

If you don't like IRV, then you just don't know how it works. People vote for the party they PREFER, but have a reserve in case that candidate is completely decimated in the polls. Some rather confused people think this gives a citizen two votes, when it really doesn't. It gives the third parties a chance.

 

Of course, even if everyone understood it perfectly, the leaders both parties don't like it, so don't expect to see it anytime soon.

 

the elections is over a year away so only time can tell if the democrats nominee can inspire me and pull me back into voting for them(I doubt it)

 

See this is the problem. And once again the left collides head on with itself and loses the battle to....itself. I want this administration out of office as much as anyone, and no matter who runs on the dem side I'd vote for them. But thanks to all the liberal fools who think voting your conscience and losing the election is better than lowering the expectations and voting as a block, there's a decent chance that they'll do the trick to keep their favorite neo-con administration in office. Thanks again lefties! Good job!

 

Evil will always win because good is dumb.

Heck, I LOVE Nader running.

 

About time the left saw what Perot did to the GOP.

 

Then again, the Dems will need to field a viable candidate by 2004 which is hardly a sure thing.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Why was it selfish for Nader to run. If he felt he could do a better job than Gore, why not run? Like I said before, Gore came off a hot eight years as Vice President. The country's mindset was positive. Clinton had his haters, and that small group scared Gore off from using him during his campaign and it hurt. It had the OPPOSITE affect he thought it would. He basically ran a platform of, "hey I don't cheat on my wife, watch me kiss her in public" and was hoping he could win over voters like that.

 

If you feel it was selfish for Nader to run, then do you think me as a person who voted for Nader am also selfish? Maybe the Democrats should stop being Republicrats and start getting an identity of their own. Does this mean they have to fall down and obey the Green agenda, NO, but they should be leaning more left than they did from 2000 on. They aren't winning ANYONE over by being moderates, the mid-terms showed that clearly. They just need to open their mouths and talk about their agenda. Get it out there.

Oh man, I HOPE that the Dems follow your advice.

 

A left-wing candidate hasn't won a national election since 1976 --- and that required stagflation and Watergate to make happen.

 

Leftists DON'T win the Presidency in this country --- but I sincerely hope the Dems challenge that theory.

-=Mike

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I'm curious, Mike. Are there ANY Democrats you like?

 

I mean, I can think of some Republicans I like, but you seem to have this US VS THEM gang mentality about it.

[Guest Vyce]

Didn't Nader say from the start though, that his goal was not to win the presidency, but to just get enough votes so he can get federal funding in 2004 and be allowed to participate in the debates? He wasn't out there with the goal to sabatoge Gore's chances. Hell, out here in CA, my meansly vote for Nader meant nothing for or against Gore/Bush in the bigger picture, and if the election would have been held up lawfully and just, then Gore STILL would have won. Only difference between someone like Nader and someone like Ross Perot, is oh umm, say.......about 10 billion dollars. Nader just wants an even playing field, that's all.

Right. So that there can be a legitimate 3rd party, so that those who are disenfranchised with either party will have a viable alternative.

 

Oops, wait, that's selfish under Tyler Logic ™. Sorry, Mr. Nader.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

If they want to become a legitimate party, they need to build from the ground up and focus on congress and local elections. You're a fucking fool if you don't see that.

 

Right now, solid Green voters need to realize that the Democrats are the lesser of the two evils when it comes to environmental policy, and if one of them has to win, at least make it the party which won't butcher the environment. Sapping votes away from them makes no sense, especially when they're *NOT* a major party, and they *DON'T* have a wide base of support on any level, probably due to the fact that they've only marginally tried to support their candidates on those levels.

 

If they put half of the effort they've put into promoting Nader... into running strong candidates and elections on local and congressional levels, their support would be EASILY above 5% of the population. However, Nader has too much of an ego to wait a few years and build up his own fucking party. Yeah, that's selfish; he just wants his damned name in the paper, even if he's got no chance to win and a slim chance at getting 5%.

[Guest MrRant]

I really don't think it's necesarry to call Dems or Rep evil. The only real evil people in the world are as follows in no order (except maybe the French one):

 

1. The French

2. Hippies

3. GreenPeace/Radical Enviromentalists (God it was funny how the founder of GreenPeace denounced the whole lot of them on Bullshit)

4. Nazis

5. KKK/all the other racist movements.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

Can I add one more thing to your list Mr. Rant? I would also put Disney on that list as well.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Well, I'm going to have fight you on that one as a huge-ass Disney fanboy (more for the company's old days though. I'm not about to defend current management/ownership.)

 

However, if you want to add Microsoft or something that everyone universally dislikes, feel free.

[Guest MrRant]

I like Disney. I would like to work for them one day. I like large corporations. I work for Comcast which is one of the biggest so there ya go.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I like Disney. I would like to work for them one day.

Animator or something?

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I'm curious, Mike. Are there ANY Democrats you like?

 

I mean, I can think of some Republicans I like, but you seem to have this US VS THEM gang mentality about it.

If you honestly think that running more to the left than they already do is a GOOD idea for the Dems, then you hate them more than I do.

-=Mike