Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2004 http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/26/...reut/index.html Nader failed to win the Green party nomination, and doubly failed by not getting enough delegates to vote "No Nominee" and allow state parties to nominate whomever they want. In effect, Ralph Nader probably won't be on more than 10 states' ballots come election time. The Green nominee, Cobb, has also pledged to only campaign in "safe states" in an attempt to avoid a 2000 repeat. Chris Bowers of MyDD has a more astute analysis of Nader's situation. --Nader has not achieved ballot access in any state. Even the seven states where the Reform party nomination has supposedly guaranteed his place on the ballot, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, South Carolina and Texas, are not secured. --As I wrote in an earlier article, Nader has almost no funds with which to work. As of May 31st, Nader had $73,412.61 cash on hand, minus around $24,000 in debts. In May alone, he spent $95,000 in Texas, while only raising $189,555 nationally. In 2000, Nader raised over $8,400,000, more than eight times his current total. --A strong Democratic effort to keep Nader off the ballot in Arizona seems to be working. Expect such efforts to continue in other states. --Nader's activist presence is minimal. His Meetup numbers have grown by less than 200 over the past two months. So, the media can stop using Nader in the national Bush/Kerry polls any time now. He'll have no effect whatsoever in 2004. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 28, 2004 Doing your best to plant a boot into the ribs of a 3rd party, eh? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2004 Nader did that to himself. He's a fucking moron for running again after so many people blame him (whether it's true or not) for losing the election for Gore in 2000. He hurt the Green party indescribably by running again in 2004. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 28, 2004 Nader did that to himself. He's a fucking moron for running again after so many people blame him (whether it's true or not) for losing the election for Gore in 2000. He hurt the Green party indescribably by running again in 2004. The Green Party does more to hurt itself than anybody else. http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jun04/239670.asp -=Mike ...Nice to see Eugene V. Debs get a vote, in spite of being dead for a long while now... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2004 umm, Nader wasn't running as a Green party member anyway. He specifically stated that he was running as an Independent so he could pull together support from various 3rd parties opposed to running as a Green party member and limiting his support. If the Democrats keep wanting to whine about Nader running instead of addressing the fact that 7 million registered democrats voted for BUSH in 2000, then they will piss away any chance of winning in 2004, over approx 250,000 voters. Another example of Democrats being stupid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2004 Also, can't people just write-in Nader as their choice anyway regardless of his name is on the ballot, or does the Presidential ballot work differently then the State election? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2004 I have to, surprisingly, agree with NoCal here. Don't keep perpetuating this absurd little fantasy that Nader somehow cost Gore the election. Gore did that all by his own little lonesome. Edit - oh, and I forgot that Tyler is the one who thinks that voting for anyone other than Kerry is throwing one's vote away, despite the fact that Nader and the Green Party and insert any additionaly third parties here speak for millions of people who aren't enamored with either party and want an alternative. Good to see you support their disenfranchisement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Art Sandusky 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2004 I'd totally vote for Debs over Kerry or Bush if he were, you know, alive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2004 Edit - oh, and I forgot that Tyler is the one who thinks that voting for anyone other than Kerry is throwing one's vote away, despite the fact that Nader and the Green Party and insert any additionaly third parties here speak for millions of people who aren't enamored with either party and want an alternative. Good to see you support their disenfranchisement. Care to quote me on that, or are you just spewing irrelevant shit like always? To NCM: I couldn't care less about the whole "OMG NADER IS PULLING FROM KERRY ASSASINATE NOW!!!" movement. I simply find it absurd that these polling firms throw Nader in there to "spice up" their tickets, when he isn't even going to get on the ballots. He's running not out of any sense of loyalty to his supporters; at this point, he's running just to placate his ginormous ego. He's probably, at the same time, killed the only truly progressive party worth voting for in the process. Why are you even remotely sympathetic to the man? Also, re: write ins -- You can write someone in for President, yes. However, to my knowledge, there has never ever ever been a successful write-in campaign, and quite frankly, who the hell is gonna write in Nader other than a very, very select few? At that point, you're not voting for your ideology; you're voting for name ID. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2004 Edit - oh, and I forgot that Tyler is the one who thinks that voting for anyone other than Kerry is throwing one's vote away, despite the fact that Nader and the Green Party and insert any additionaly third parties here speak for millions of people who aren't enamored with either party and want an alternative. Good to see you support their disenfranchisement. Care to quote me on that, or are you just spewing irrelevant shit like always? To NCM: I couldn't care less about the whole "OMG NADER IS PULLING FROM KERRY ASSASINATE NOW!!!" movement. I simply find it absurd that these polling firms throw Nader in there to "spice up" their tickets, when he isn't even going to get on the ballots. He's running not out of any sense of loyalty to his supporters; at this point, he's running just to placate his ginormous ego. He's probably, at the same time, killed the only truly progressive party worth voting for in the process. Why are you even remotely sympathetic to the man? it has nothing to be with me being "sympathetic" to the man. I would guess that Nader is used in polls merely because he is the most recognizable name out there in the 3rd party world. I'd even go on to boldy say that "Ralph Nader" is more recognizable then "Green Party" but that could be debatable. Also considering half the Green party still supports Nader. It isn't like the Green party had some major anti-Nader revolt. It is just that there is a faction that is scared of Bush winning and not sure what to do when it comes time to vote. It's not like they have abandoned Nader and/or his beliefs. I mean hell, Peter Camejo(GP) is his VP candidate. Also there is the "conspiracy theory" riding around that this is just a slick move by the green party/Nader to get ANOTHER 3rd party voice out there, which in turn will make more people pay attention. So who knows, it is too early to see how this will end up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2004 I'd even go on to boldy say that "Ralph Nader" is more recognizable then "Green Party" but that could be debatable. Depends if you're talking about nationally or worldwide. Also considering half the Green party still supports Nader. More like 1/3... check the article I posted. There actually has been a large anti-Nader revolt, specifically because of his attempt to distance himself from the party when they had virtually no one else with name ID. If Nader wanted to help the party, he could've started by grooming a candidate right after 2000. Instead, he chose to waffle and then run again himself, only this time choosing to fart on the Greens. It is just that there is a faction that is scared of Bush winning and not sure what to do when it comes time to vote. It's not like they have abandoned Nader and/or his beliefs. I would call a good 2/3 of the Green party more than a "faction". And if they nominated a candidate with, effectively, Nader's beliefs (which they did; Cobb is a textbook Green, from what I've read), why would you vote for Nader and fuck over your own growing party? It doesn't make sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2004 And if they nominated a candidate with, effectively, Nader's beliefs (which they did; Cobb is a textbook Green, from what I've read), why would you vote for Nader and fuck over your own growing party? It doesn't make sense. well then what is the point of not appointing Nader? When he is running at 4-6% without any press whatsoever other then, "Democrats mad at Nader" or "Nader the spoiler" I already tried to explain why Nader wasn't running as a Green, but as far as I know, he hasn't changed any of his core beliefs, he is just going for a strategy that will garner more votes. *ok back to work* lol. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2004 well then what is the point of not appointing Nader? The point was because he gave a big F-You to the party by not seeking their nomination in the first place. If the Greens had nominated Nader again, even after he informed everyone that he doesn't wanna be a Green anymore, it would make the party more of a laughingstock than they already are (what, with the Debbs issue and all). I already tried to explain why Nader wasn't running as a Green, but as far as I know, he hasn't changed any of his core beliefs, he is just going for a strategy that will garner more votes. Which becomes a fundamental difference of opinion. His overall vote strategy will fail miserably, but you think he's doing it because he'll get them, whereas I believe he's doing it because he wants more publicity. I can't argue with you on it because both are just opinions, so I'll leave it at that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2004 "Polls show John Kerry ahead of George W Bush by a (insert number ,usually 4-7) point lead, but with Ralph Nader added in a 3 man race, Kerry's lead drops to (small number, usually about 2) points." The problem with these polls is it would never be a strict three man race. The polls operate on the assumption Nader will have as much advertising, word of mouth, and generally will be able to get out there as much as much as the two major candidates. Anyone with a sense of reality knows he won't. I agree with both NCM and Tyler. Nader didn't cost the 2000 debacle, but he was obviously trying to get Kerry to support his platform more by threatening to run again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2004 "Polls show John Kerry ahead of George W Bush by a (insert number ,usually 4-7) point lead, but with Ralph Nader added in a 3 man race, Kerry's lead drops to (small number, usually about 2) points." The problem with these polls is it would never be a strict three man race. The polls operate on the assumption Nader will have as much advertising, word of mouth, and generally will be able to get out there as much as much as the two major candidates. Anyone with a sense of reality knows he won't. I agree with both NCM and Tyler. Nader didn't cost the 2000 debacle, but he was obviously trying to get Kerry to support his platform more by threatening to run again. well fundamentally a lot of the liberal democrats agree with the Green party in principle and when it sounds good to say so, but when it comes time to actually vote on bills & measures, they suddenly forget their so-called beliefs on certain issues. I think that is where the Green Party is coming from. And as far as Nader goes, well he did get support from the Reform Party which is kind of strange since I believe the Reform Party has formerly nominated Buchanan as their choice, but then again there are some backwards issues the two agree on in an odd sort of way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2004 Yeah, they're conservative in nature. And this shouldn't surprise people, either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2004 well fundamentally a lot of the liberal democrats agree with the Green party in principle and when it sounds good to say so, but when it comes time to actually vote on bills & measures, they suddenly forget their so-called beliefs on certain issues. I think that is where the Green Party is coming from. I'd support having multiple "big" parties if I could. It'll be a long time, but we may see one yet. If a whole voting bloc with a good number of people felt they were being ignored on both sides, you could get a third party started. However, I've seen quite a bit of this the past few times: Nader: I think I'm going to run. Democrats: OFF WITH HIS HEAD! D-Candidate: Nononononononono, don't run! Republicans: Run, Ralph, run! > Nader: Well, you know, maybe I won't run... D-Candidate: *whew* Nader: But I'll feel less like running if D-Candidate takes this position, and this position, and this one... D-Candidate: But moderates are uncomfortable with this stuff.... Nader: I FEEL AN ACHIN' IN MY BONES, I GOTTA RUN! D-Candidate: Okay, okay, you got it. And then, like a choose your own adventure, either the Dem refuses and Nader runs, or the Dem takes the baggage and Nader runs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 28, 2004 Hell, the moment Kerry stops being invisible, he's doomed as is. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2004 Hell, the moment Kerry stops being invisible, he's doomed as is. -=Mike oddly, I'd have to agree with you. It definately seems that Kerry's ratings go up the most in "the polls" when he is silent/invisible and Bush is just left to screwing up as usual(well in my opinion) but the minute Kerry actually speaks up on it his numbers seem to drop down again. Maybe Kerry should just keep silent until the debates and let Bush seal his own defeat.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Olympic Slam Report post Posted June 29, 2004 Here's something interesting...... While cruising my usual run-down of web readings, I found this very interesting article at the American Conservative Magazine's web site on why Nader thinks he can appeal to the Conservative wing of the Republican party. Besides being fairly interesting it also containts this nugget of info from Nader himself.........PB = Pat Buchanan and RN= Ralph Nader...... PB: Let’s go to politics. If you had not been in the race in 2000, who would have won? RN: That requires me to be a retrospective clairvoyant. If I wasn’t in a race, would the Democrats have gone all-out to get out the vote in certain states because they were worried about the percentages I was drawing? And if I was not in the race, would Gore have made populist statements day after day—“I am for the people, not the powerful”—which polls showed brought him more votes than if he went to Lieberman’s semantic route? Having said that, exit polls showed 25 percent of my votes would have gone to Bush, 38 percent would have gone to Gore, and the rest would have stayed home and not voted. A month and a half ago, a poll came from New Hampshire that showed that 8 percent were for me: 9 percent Republicans, 11 percent independents, 4 percent Democrats. PB: If you hurt Bush more than Gore, why are the Democrats trying to keep you off the ballot? RN: Because they will forever think that my progressive policies will take more Democrat votes and independent votes than they will take from the other side Obviously the Green and Nader crowds are more in-line with Democrat policies, but there are pockets of conservatism that could off-set that. Interesting eh? Full Article Source: The American Conservative Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted June 29, 2004 Hell, the moment Kerry stops being invisible, he's doomed as is. -=Mike oddly, I'd have to agree with you. It definately seems that Kerry's ratings go up the most in "the polls" when he is silent/invisible and Bush is just left to screwing up as usual(well in my opinion) but the minute Kerry actually speaks up on it his numbers seem to drop down again. Maybe Kerry should just keep silent until the debates and let Bush seal his own defeat.... People will talk about Bush all they want, and make remarks about him "defeating himself", but how damning is it for a party when people like your candidate more when he does nothing but stay in the background and remain silent? And how sad is it for America that the alternative to the incumbent is a guy who we like less the more we see of him? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 29, 2004 Hell, the moment Kerry stops being invisible, he's doomed as is. -=Mike oddly, I'd have to agree with you. It definately seems that Kerry's ratings go up the most in "the polls" when he is silent/invisible and Bush is just left to screwing up as usual(well in my opinion) but the minute Kerry actually speaks up on it his numbers seem to drop down again. Maybe Kerry should just keep silent until the debates and let Bush seal his own defeat.... People will talk about Bush all they want, and make remarks about him "defeating himself", but how damning is it for a party when people like your candidate more when he does nothing but stay in the background and remain silent? And how sad is it for America that the alternative to the incumbent is a guy who we like less the more we see of him? Hell, Bush is hurt by MISCONCEPTIONS. People will end up voting their pocket books and you'll see a MUCH different landscape than the current polls. People assume the economy is bad because all they've heard is that their neighbors have been doing badly for a while. Not many people THEMSELVES have been doing badly as of late. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted June 29, 2004 Hm. Kerry does still need a running mate... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 29, 2004 Hm. Kerry does still need a running mate... Nader? Man, that would be a charisma black hole right there. Hell, why doesn't Bush just name Powell or Rice as his VP and kill the Democratic ticket right now? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted June 29, 2004 Ew. Nader as a VP would be... ew. Not even sure I could vote for that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted June 29, 2004 Hm. Kerry does still need a running mate... Nader? It's the closest Nader would ever get to being President. Hell, why doesn't Bush just name Powell or Rice as his VP and kill the Democratic ticket right now? He should do that anyways. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted June 29, 2004 Ew. Nader as a VP would be... ew. Not even sure I could vote for that. I agree, I mean not even Nader could get me to vote for Kerry...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted June 29, 2004 Hell, the moment Kerry stops being invisible, he's doomed as is. -=Mike oddly, I'd have to agree with you. It definately seems that Kerry's ratings go up the most in "the polls" when he is silent/invisible and Bush is just left to screwing up as usual(well in my opinion) but the minute Kerry actually speaks up on it his numbers seem to drop down again. Maybe Kerry should just keep silent until the debates and let Bush seal his own defeat.... People will talk about Bush all they want, and make remarks about him "defeating himself", but how damning is it for a party when people like your candidate more when he does nothing but stay in the background and remain silent? And how sad is it for America that the alternative to the incumbent is a guy who we like less the more we see of him? well from everyone I have heard on this board, Kerry is a lackluster candidate at best, no one has claimed he is a savior, however Bush continues to show why Kerry can just sit back and shut the hell up, and still make it a close election. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted June 29, 2004 I don't blame you. I'm having trouble stomaching it myself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted June 29, 2004 Hell, Bush is hurt by MISCONCEPTIONS. People will end up voting their pocket books and you'll see a MUCH different landscape than the current polls. People assume the economy is bad because all they've heard is that their neighbors have been doing badly for a while. Not many people THEMSELVES have been doing badly as of late. -=Mike Well according to you ANY criticism to Bush is a misconception. Also, I am gonna call bullshit on the "people assume the economy is bad.....etc..." I don't know what "media" you are watching, but the news shows I watch everynight keep DESPERATELY trying to put out the notion that are economy is "booming" and very robust. Which is a laugh and half in itself..... "heard their neighbors have been doing badly" well assuming neighbors still talk, I don't think it would much of "hearing" more like, seeing so for themselves. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
