Jump to content
TSM Forums

After debate Nader says considering president bid

MrRant

By MrRant
in Current Events

 Share

Recommended Posts

MrRant Newbie

MrRant

Posted
Posted
DURHAM , Dec. 9 – Ralph Nader, a guest of presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, stood outside the press room of Tuesday’s debate telling reporters he’ll make a decision whether to enter his own name in the race for the White House early next year.

 

Nader explained that he is waiting for the Democratic and Republican National Committees to formally respond to a 25-page agenda that he proposed to them in recent weeks.

 

He will make the agenda public when he gets a response, he said.

 

Nader said he is expecting a reply from both organizations sometime in mid-December.

 

“I’m going to get a response,” he said. “The question is: what’s the quality.”

 

Nader said that former Vice President Al Gore’s endorsement of Democratic front-runner Gov. Howard Dean is not a sign that the Democratic Party is shifting more toward Green Party values.

 

“Gov. Dean is not a progressive Democrat,” he said. “He’s a mainstream Democrat by his own acknowledgement.”

 

http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell...12_9Ralph.shtml

Guest Cerebus

Guest Cerebus

Posted
Posted

Yeah, after all Bush & Howie are the same guy right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RIGHT???

NoCalMike Newbie

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted

I can see the blame game starting now. At least Dean will still win his home state though, something that if Gore could have done, you would have never heard any whining about Nader ruining the election.

Guest Cerebus

Guest Cerebus

Posted
Posted
I can see the blame game starting now. At least Dean will still win his home state though, something that if Gore could have done, you would have never heard any whining about Nader ruining the election.

Gore did win his home state, DC voted for him ;)

Guest Cerebus

Guest Cerebus

Posted
Posted
"Well I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate"

 

"Go ahead, throw your vote away!"

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

Guest Salacious Crumb

Guest Salacious Crumb

Posted
Posted

Well, at least Dean has an excuse for his defeat now.

teke184 Newbie

teke184

Posted
Posted

Dean was in trouble before...

 

With Nader in the race, Dean will not only lose but possibly get cause Nader to get the 20% of the vote the Green party needs to get matching funds in future elections.

 

I don't agree with all of Nader's views but I at least believe that he's less hypocritical on his positions than most Dems such as Lieberman, who totally crawfished on all his views when he became Gore's running mate and did it again after the election.

kkktookmybabyaway Newbie

kkktookmybabyaway

Posted
Posted
"Well I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate"

 

"Go ahead, throw your vote away!"

Sure the person you're voting for won't be elected president of a school board, let alone the United States, but if enough people "throw away" their vote then the political party that third-party candidate is representing might become more prominent in the future in regards to getting federal funds, etc...

Guest JMA

Guest JMA

Posted
Posted

They need to give all serious candidates television time.

 

Even the crazy ones (like Buchanan).

NoCalMike Newbie

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted
Yep.

 

And Nader failed miserably in '00 -- a shame because I thought the old goat was going to get the Greens the greenbacks...

Well let's not forget the '00 Nader Trader situation, where masses of Green Party voters(ok maybe MASSES is not the right word, hehehe) abandoned their choice to vote for Nader when they saw how close the election was turning out to be. Nader had 3% after appearing on TV maybe once or twice in two years.

Guest MikeSC

Guest MikeSC

Posted
Posted
They need to give all serious candidates television time.

 

Even the crazy ones (like Buchanan).

Why?

 

Why give nutjobs ANY legitimacy?

 

Do you have any idea how many people actually RUN for President?

-=Mike

Guest MikeSC

Guest MikeSC

Posted
Posted
They need to give all serious candidates television time.

 

Even the crazy ones (like Buchanan).

Why?

 

Why give nutjobs ANY legitimacy?

 

Do you have any idea how many people actually RUN for President?

-=Mike

kkktookmybabyaway Newbie

kkktookmybabyaway

Posted
Posted
Yep.

 

And Nader failed miserably in '00 -- a shame because I thought the old goat was going to get the Greens the greenbacks...

Well let's not forget the '00 Nader Trader situation, where masses of Green Party voters(ok maybe MASSES is not the right word, hehehe) abandoned their choice to vote for Nader when they saw how close the election was turning out to be. Nader had 3% after appearing on TV maybe once or twice in two years.

Well then those "Nader-ites" really weren't all that loyal then.

 

Besides, there were a bunch of states, sans Fla., where Gore didn't need that extra dozen or so pseudo-hippie votes. I'm not using the I-switched-my-vote-to-Gore-because-I-don't-want-HITLER-being-elected.

 

My guess is that most of the Greenies just got high the night before Election Day and just forgot to vote...

kkktookmybabyaway Newbie

kkktookmybabyaway

Posted
Posted
BTW, you only need 5% of the vote to recieve matching federal funds the next go-around.

I thought it was 5% to be allowed into the presidential debates and 11% to get matching funds?

It has to be 5 percent, or some other really low figure, because remember the big fight in the Reform Party with Pat B. and that other wacko? Every article about this fiasco mentioned that they were fighting for FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS.

 

Man, talk about a waste of taxpayer dollars...

BX Newbie

BX

Posted
Posted
Reform party eligibility in 2000 came as a result of the general election vote percentage received by Ross Perot in 1996. By receiving more than 5% of the general election vote the Reform party became eligible for pre-election payments. Under current law, convention grants are made in July of the year preceding the election, with an additional payment in the election year to account for any inflation in the intervening period.

 

http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.html

NoCalMike Newbie

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted
Reform party eligibility in 2000 came as a result of the general election vote percentage received by Ross Perot in 1996. By receiving more than 5% of the general election vote the Reform party became eligible for pre-election payments. Under current law, convention grants are made in July of the year preceding the election, with an additional payment in the election year to account for any inflation in the intervening period.

 

http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.html

Ok, that settles it.

EricMM Newbie

EricMM

Posted
Posted

I voted for Nader.

 

I may again.

 

I don't know offhand the environmental theories of various Dems. But I don't really like Dean. Kerry looks odd. Liberman is almost as bad as Tipper Gore... And hey Gephardt's daughter is kind of cute. Maybe I'll vote for him...

RepoMan Newbie

RepoMan

Posted
Posted
They need to give all serious candidates television time.

 

Even the crazy ones (like Buchanan).

Why?

 

Why give nutjobs ANY legitimacy?

 

Do you have any idea how many people actually RUN for President?

-=Mike

I think the top 4-6 candidates should be able to partipate. Chosing a president should be more than an A or B decision. I'd like to see the Green, Reform, and Libretarian parties get their candidates on consistently.

Guest MikeSC

Guest MikeSC

Posted
Posted
They need to give all serious candidates television time.

 

Even the crazy ones (like Buchanan).

Why?

 

Why give nutjobs ANY legitimacy?

 

Do you have any idea how many people actually RUN for President?

-=Mike

I think the top 4-6 candidates should be able to partipate. Chosing a president should be more than an A or B decision. I'd like to see the Green, Reform, and Libretarian parties get their candidates on consistently.

If they can't even pull in 5% of the vote, why should we waste our time?

-=Mike

Jobber of the Week Newbie

Jobber of the Week

Posted
Posted

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/23/nader...er_greens031223

 

  Nader won't run for Greens in 2004

Last Updated Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:36:39

 

WASHINGTON - Consumer advocate Ralph Nader has ruled out a second run as the Green Party's presidential candidate in the 2004 American election.

 

Many Democrats see Nader as the man who ruined Al Gore's shot at the White House by draining away traditional voters for their party, handing the victory in 2000 to Republican George W. Bush.

 

Nader's name may still end up on the ballot, however. The man who earned nearly 3 per cent of the national vote in 2000 is still considering running for president as an independent.

 

Green Party officials said they were disappointed at his decision, given that it could split the vote among American liberals.

 

Six people are already in the running to be the party's candidate, including Peter Camejo, who ran for the Greens in the California recall campaign that put Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Governor's Mansion.

 

Nader supported Camejo in the California race and has referred to him as a possible Green candidate for next year's presidential election.

 

I guess he had so much fun screwing up the Democrats, he might decide to run Independant so he can screw up the Greens, too.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...