will you vote for Nader?

simple question.

can you forsee any circumstance that would bring you to vote for Nader?

:eyes:

For me, probably not but, as always, it's largely in the hands of the Dem nominee.

i want to understand.

i NEED to understand. i really dismissed the possibility that he'd run again. i need to understand why i should vote for Nader.

Seriously, in 2.5 years here, and countless Green/Dem flamewars, I don't remember once having seen anyone tell anyone else that they should vote for Nader.

Personally, I trust folks here to inform themselves and vote accordingly. There is, or at least should be imho, a whole range of things that go into that decision, and even though I'm not *planning* to vote third party (for what would be the third time in a row if I did), I have absolutely no beef with those who, after reflection on the thing, do.

As far as understanding goes, I doubt that you need look any further than the overall wan ineffectiveness of the Dem leadership at this pass. For me, the bar is much lowered for 2004, and I'm willing to vote for someone who will at least START the growth of some kind of spine. Others look at the current field and see no such Democratic beast. So it goes.

and why? i thought that would be one way to understand them.

I assume a basic level of informedness with DUers, and I've never seen anyone ask here.

i'd like to understand with more specificity.

If they think Bush is doing a good job then they will obviously vote for Bush....duh.

I do not even know if Ralph is going to run again, I do not know if the Green Party wants him too either, and neither does anyone else here at this testosterone fest. In the meanwhile Nader is still speaking with far more intelligence, passion and accuracy to the problems besetting this nation and the democratic party than are most democrats, when they speak out at all.

so Bush supporters will vote for Nader, which will then not count for the democratic candidate, so it will "count" (or not harm) for Bush. Then the GOP gets to control the middle, and support the leftist revolt led by the greens against the dems.

Anyone who doesn't care if Chimp gets elected, freepers mostly I guess.

:grr:

eom

I don't care how bad (some may think) the dem nominee is, he won't be as bad as shrub. But if some think otherwise, go ahead and vote for him (Nader/shrub).

A vote for Nader, to some principles matter above all else and some will vote for the person they feel represents them best regardless of the outcome.

Voting on your principles is nothing to be ashamed of!



retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read the book

lurking around DU. It's that simple. Heh, they are unemployed and still loving GW... It's called masochism...

Hopefully the Democrats instead nominate a Democrat.

This is the same kind of thing that got it for him last time.

Don't "Naderize" Dean. Learn from your mistakes.

**

1. It would take away votes from the Democratic candidate and help * in his re-election.

2. I don't see Pennsylvania lowering the voting age to 17 in time for the election.

even in the unlikely event that Joe Lieberman got the nomination I would vote for the Democratic nominee.

with mine than either of the major party candidates, then yes, I'd vote for him. I do not buy into the notion that he "cost the Dems the last election". People voted for him, because, presumably they didn't care for either Gore or bush's message.

But I will not do it again. I was blinded by the belief that Gore could not lose. My eyes have been opened and I will do whatever I can to ensure that *&(@#*$& is removed from office. Even if it means I have to vote for someone with whom I have major philosophical differences.

The main goal in 2004 should be removal of * from office. We can't afford to let our ideals get in the way of practicality this time.

And the dark horse he rode in on.

at winning?? C'Mon gimme a fu--ing break!
Voting for Nader instead of the dem candidate IS A VOTE FOR BUSH! GOT IT?!
Nothing good would ever come out of that Nader must be in bed with the bu$hies. He knows damn well that he'd be taking votes away from dem candidate,and that he has no fu--ing chance of winning the presidency.

and, in fact, I voted for him last time, as a matter of principle. Not this time, though. I'm kind of surprised he's running at all -- this time, I think getting Bush out is more important than making a statement for Nadar.

I voted for Nader last time, but this time, I will vote for a democrat. Besides, Gore won by 10 points in my state. It was a vote of conscience.

However, I still reserve the right to vote for a "3rd" party candidate, if I don't like the nominee, and if someone like Kucinich were that candidate.

Welcome to DU, by the way. :toast:

and, in fact, I voted for him last time, as a matter of principle. Not this time, though. I'm kind of surprised he's running at all -- this time, I think getting Bush out is more important than making a statement for Nader.

Hell, yes. Nader would certainly be an improvement over Bush. But, that is a "when hell freezes over" type of answer.


Sadly, Nader has lost all credibility IMO.

And people yell at ME around here. I know what party I belong to.

Call me crazy. (Call me Ishmael too for that matter). But I still believe that a candidate should "earn" my vote. "The other guy is worse" is rarely going to work for me. In this case, I now believe that the other guy really is that much worse.

enough green-baiting already, jeez.

maybe the poll numbers will show that this is not a real issue on DU.

There is really only one Democratic candidate who is working towards providing a real change in this country, and that is Kucinich. As has been frequently been yelled at me by others on this board, Kucinich has very little chance of winning. Therefore, I will vote for the Green candidate. If the Greens, in some misguided attempt to curry favor with the Dems, don't run a presidential candidate, and Nader is running independently, I will vote for him. Screw the Democratic party, it has, for the most part, become nothing but another corporate whore.

I want a change of direction in this country of ours, not just a change in the speed with which we approach the cliffedge.

It is hurling yourself and all the rest of us off the fucking cliff.

are of your own making and solution will guarantee the Dem party suicide

What party does not? Are the Greens and their fantasy of success a silver bullet? I don't think so. So fix it from within, don't blow it up.

damn, the party wont even admit to their problems...what's going to be fixed?

Then worry about the rest.

Everything was fixed in 1992, wasn't it :eyes:

Or don't you agree?

or was Clinton responsible for turning it all around...oh wait! he wasn't president until 1993

Geez

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Nader's a big hypocrite. There's no reason to vote for him.

And I am part of us. A lifelong Democrat actually.

Your unyeilding blindness to the failures of your own party is political murder, the victim being democracy itself.

or we all can to (Bush's) hell? Sure I'd love to have a candidate that I agree with 100%, but thats not going to happen. And frankly I am to the left of the mainstream and it will take a long time to convince enough of the "middle" that a candidate I agree with 100% to be vaible.

In the mean time we have the worst, most reckless, most inept President EVER in office, the prime goal must be getting him out of office, not taking your toys and going home to pout if the ONLY alternative to Bush* isn't 100% to your liking.

I'm looking for a candidate who isn't a fucking corporate whore! And the only ones who aren't are Kucinich, the Greens, and Nader.
Don't you get it yet? The Dems, for the most part, are bought and paid for corporate whores, who will do the bidding of their corporate masters. The same corporate masters who tell the 'Pugs what to do. Does NAFTA, GATT, FTAA, WTO, increased war on drugs, welfare "reform", '96 Telecom Act, soft money contributions, and on and on ad nauseum sound like something a Democratic President would or should do? Hell no, but that is exactly what the "great God" Clinton did, all at the behest of his corporate masters, the same corporate master who are sinking the hooks into virtually all of the current Dem crop of candidates. What do you the the DLC/DNC is about? Right hand sock puppet is controlled by the same person controlling the left hand sock puppet.

Wake the hell up and get a clue! We have the Dem party drifting ever rightwards, promoting that two party, same coporate master system. What will it take to wake you up, when they merge to become the Repulicrats? Sheesh!

But wait... let's see if they wake up and nominate someone decent.

I'm holding out some hope that the Democrats will nominate a good candidate. I'm narrowing down the options of who that candidate could be.

Damn, I was really hoping they would be intelligent and nominate Kucinich, but that just isnt gonna happen. Instead,they will continue to make the democrats into a branch of republican idealists. Sadly, people will vote for the less of two evils to forstall the inevitable doom... instead of banding together to make fundamental change.

But... worst case scenario...

Im with you, Im not going down like that.

Unfortunately, Clark is sure to get nominated if Bush even has a tiny fear come crunch time of losing the election. If his poll numbers stay strong, they will just blow their whole wad on Bush because Dean will be a nonissue. They, being the corporations, the handful of them that control our country and the world..I love that Wes Clark sits on the board at NED with a former senator, turned advisor to Worldbank and a whole host of unsavory characters mired in scandal and nobody even cares. But NED is a bipartisan thinktank that helps us! Woohoo. Just like PNAC is the la leche league.


And that, my friends is gonna be way worse then this administration ever thought of being.. and you will have bought it, hook, line and sinker.

Ill try not to say I told you so. ;)

but if the choice is between a competent corporate whore with a social conscience and a fascist incompetent aristocratic fuck-up who is dragging this country and the world into chaos, then I'll vote for the whore and choose the lesser of two evils, not vote for a hopeless case no matter how "pure" he might be and thus enable the fascist destroyer to stay in power.

Voting for Nader is just so much moral masturbation... worse even because it is taking votes away from the ONLY candidate who could get Bush* out of power. But if you STILL think there is no difference between a Dem whore and four more years of Bush then there is no hope for you, or the rest of us.

**

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

to take a Corvair and run Nader over with it!

what a wonderful way to solve your inadequacies

In some ways it's kind of like showing one's superiority by voting for the unelectalbe.

Just what exactly is it that you don't understand?

With all kidding aside, in all fairness, with amenity to all why do you expect the American populous, the voter (not just Democrats), to accept a candidate that has absolutely no political experience?

It boggles the mind. Plain and simple.

If the Green Party promotes another Presidential candidate that has NO political record to speak of, at any level, then why would John and Jane Q. Voter want to elect that candidate?

Ralph Nader has done a great amount of work for the American consumer, but that does not mean that his consumer advocacy will translate into a political triumph for this country.

How many times has RN run for the presidency and lost?

Now you can hope that would be the outcome, and hope is a great thing, but if RN is really serious about public office then why doesn't he try something a little more realistic like Govenor or Congressman?

I don't think that the main concern, with many here, with the Green party is about their existence but rather its continued support for a candidate that may bring them national recognition and funding if they hit that magic %5+ number.

So why vote green?

Convince me, but please don't tell me that the Republicans and the Democrats are exactly the same, or that if Al Gore had been elected then we would be in the same place that we are today. The last 3 years have proved those statements to be false.

As you might be aware of, but doesnt suit your purpose, Nader is fronting for the growth of third party politics as he , and I understand that the two party system is dead as a doornail.

The truth, however, does suit my purpose here.

If Ralph nader is fronting for the growth of a third party in this country then why hasn't he actively joined the Greens (you know, the ones that endorsed him for POTUS in '00) so that he can lead the way: a champion of true democracy?

I have heard very little from him up until now. Has he brought anything new to the table? Is he going to try and convince us, once again, that the the Dems are exactly like * and the repugs? I hope not. That would be a fools errand: laughable.

Has he done anything at the ground level to try and grow the third party or will he remain aloof and ]above it all? That's not the actions of a leader. The problem that I see is that the Greens haven't yet built a strong enough support structure to travel anywhere beyond the local level, and it sadens me that they think so high and mightly of themselves that they are ready for the top position.

To many here it is absurdly simple. You can't build a house without a strong foundation. If the greens or another third party want to claim the POTUS as their own then they have some real building to do.

"Why vote Green?"

A part of the idea is to create outside pressure on an established political party by creating a third party threat. History teaches that it is an effective strategy in our electoral system.

Examples:

Socailist Debs pressuring for labor and prison reforms.

Progressive LaFollette for labor refroms and women's sufferage.

Socialist Thomas pressure on FDR to pass the CCC, WPA and FDIC in 1933 as well as the Wagner Act for unions and the SSI.

Harrington's "Other America" and the Democratic Socialists influence on LBJ's Great Society.



In all of these cases there were of course poltical groups which were not directly involved in electoral politics that were presssuring the establishment as well, but a combination of electoral and non-electoral pressure has gotten a lot done in this country.

Most of the Greens I've been involved with are politically active 365. They don't wait for election cycles to make a difference, but rather try to do it on a day-to-day basis. The electoral realm is simply one more avenue through with to bring about change, and "winning" isn't about just getting someone in office in a particular election but rather working to change the nature of the national discourse.

I don't doubt that some people have their eyes on matching funds, but you also have to remember the exclusionary nature of ballot access laws in many states. If a Green does not garner a certain percentage of votes in a national or statewide race in the next election cycle, many state organizations will lose their ballot access and have to spend thousands of hours out petitioning to get back on the ballot in 2006. These laws are on the books for precisely the purpose of keeping third parties out of the process, but also create a situation in which a sufficiently powerful third party has no choice but to run candidates, damaging the party closest to them on the political spectrum.

So are you telling me that the idea of the Greens is really not to become a viable party but only an vehicle with which to threaten the Dems with loss after political loss?

Is that the really Green's charter?


I have no problem whatsoever with 365-24-7 activism, but at some point the Greens are going to have to win something or be fated to become a party obscura: relegated to the political dustheap joing the half-hearted attempts from elections past. You can't have a party that neglects to vie for some form of representative governance.

Maybe it would be in the interest of the Greens to work on the local problems of ballot access and runoff laws, at the state level, before they try and tackle the bigger hurdles of actually getting elected.

Elected seats are vital to the survial of any political party. Green victories have primarily been on the local and regional level with a couple on the state level (205 elected officials in 26 states as of Nov. 2003). It's not really that different from the strategy the Christian right used to influence politics from the bottom up.

That being said, outside agitation is an obvious goal. No Socialist Party member was ever elected to the presidency, but their candidacy influenced policy. Winning is important, but it is not necessarily the only route.

Take Libertarians; they hold few elected offices, but their economic views are fairly well represented in the Repbulican Party. They have influenced thought as much as elections.

I have worked extensively on the issue of electoral reform, including testifying before state panels on the subject. While there have been some standout representatives on the issue, most seem more interested in maintaining their own power than in serving democracy. The only places there has really been any action on things like IRV are locals where one of the two established parties is threatened by votes split via a third party. In Alaska for example Republicans supported IRV because of the split on the right with the Alaska Independence Party. In that state the Democratic Party (and their ancilliary organizations like the League of Women Voters) actively campaigned against the reform because they saw no advantage and actually benefited from a less democratic system. Had their voter base been threatened by Green insurgence, the story might have been different.

So, I think there is something to be said for both approaches.

he's been on Capitol Hill more than any of them...I'm just trying to figure out why you think that the American people give shit one about experience. Did you see AHHnold Schwarzenegger get elected? He had less experience than a dog catcher and he was elected.

As to your last paragraph, Nader never said the parties were exactly the same...he said there was little difference on the national picture (an idea backed up by Noam Chomsky) Also, I don't remember anyone saying that 3 years of Gore would have been the same as 3 years of Bush. I do remember them saying it would be similar.

That's a pretty simple question. Don't you think?


he's been on Capitol Hill more than any of them...I'm just trying to figure out why you think that the American people give shit one about experience. Did you see AHHnold Schwarzenegger get elected? He had less experience than a dog catcher and he was elected.


So are you saying that experience doesn't matter at all? Great! Fuck experience! Let's just make it all a popularity contest shall we!

A little wakeup for you. Nader would lose the popularity contest as well.

The reason that Ahh-nold was voted in as Govenor is that he (like many politicians) lied about what he was going to do and promised the world to those that would listen. So the friggn lazy brain dead voters in CA, that want everything but don't wish to pay for it, voted the fucker into office because he's a photogenic, exciting, sound-bite, action hero! That's why. Form over substance. I can't wait to see their expressions when Ahh-nold has to make some really tough descision, like governing, and cuts some of their entitlements.


As to your last paragraph, Nader never said the parties were exactly the same...he said there was little difference on the national picture (an idea backed up by Noam Chomsky) Also, I don't remember anyone saying that 3 years of Gore would have been the same as 3 years of Bush. I do remember them saying it would be similar.


Little Difference.

I think that you are splitting hairs.

Would Gore have give the obscene tax gift to the rich.

Might 9/11 have happened under Gore's watch?

Would Gore have invaded Iraq on trumped-up charges (ie.e lies)?

Would Gore have made the U.S. the prirriah state that it is today in the world's opinion?

Would Gore have done one tenth of the damage done to our political system that * has done?

Care to answer any of these?

Little difference indeed!

No way!

And we wonder why we have problems in national elections. The number is up to 11/13 (two not sure).

Although I voted for Nader in '96 & I lived in New York in 2000 and would have voted for him (except there was a death in my family and I was on a plane on election day, the last thing I was thinking about was an absentee ballot)in 2000 in New York, only because I knew Gore would carry New York. In any swing state I would have voted for Gore & in 2004 every state is a swing state so the Dem will get my vote.

This is not the election to be voting for someone on a matter of principle. Nader cannot win, and a vote for him is almost as bad as not voting at all.

:)

nt

Good one.

Never!

Nader is no longer a useful voice for progressives. The damage he caused will never be forgiven by me or many others I know.

My sister, who voted for him in 2000, still bemoans her choice. She is a one-woman anti-Nader now.

He let his ego run the show. It's a shame.

that's not Green-bashing, that's just reality.

If you vote for someone other than the Dem candidate, you are helping to ensure a second term for little hitler. This is a time of national emergency. We should rally behind our best bet to rescue the nation from the thugs who now pervert it in so many ways. In 2004, that best bet will be the Dem candidate.

The problem is gwmoron. If you are not part of the solution, well...

Again, that's not Green-bashing, that's just reality.

Greens will sweat, but in the end, they will pull the lever for the dem because they know who * suit really is.

And three more not sure. Kool Aid anyone?

is NOT

if a hard-core Paul Wellstone or Dennis Kucinich type progressive is not on the TICKET.

I'm sick of the Democrats who have no fucking backbone. Yeah...let's all vote for a stupid ass war! Yeah...let's all fuck the constitution with the patriot act! Yeah...let's deny gays and lesbians equal rights including marriage!

Give me a fucking break.

Many democrats are republicans in disguise(ClarkcoughtClarkcough).

If a Wellstone or Kucinich type progressive is not President of VP...I won't be voting for the democratic candidate.

I'll be happy to vote for Nader who has a vision of reforming many horrible things that are allowed today in America.

My vote isn't going to a bad candidate...yours is.

I'm sick of the Democrats who have no %^&* backbone. Yeah...let's all vote for a stupid ass war! Yeah...let's all %^&*( the constitution with the patriot act! Yeah...let's deny gays and lesbians equal rights including marriage!


... and I wonder if Dean or Clark have that kind of backbone. I really thought President Clinton could stand up to anybody, but he didn't. Why vote for someone you think is going to sell out? To beat you-know-who? I've heard it's a bad idea to jump out of the fat and into the fire, but jumping out of the fire and into the fat isn't a swell idea either.

16% for Nader.... The Democratic Party is as fired up as it has been in years and you want to vote for an unanounced campaign? why? and why are you a registered democrat?

It is?

I think there are two points or three points I could make. One is the average joe contributing to Deans and Clarks (and other candidates) campaigns, I believe this is different or more significant than in past elections. Two is that the Bush negatives are so high with democrats. Three is really related to two, in that so many democrats are against the Iraq war and such.

I'M NOT A F***ING IDIOT.

Beat Bush at all costs.

I don't give a damn who the Democratic candidate is,I am voting for the candidate.


We must get $hrub out of office,period! We can work out the rest later. Just shitcan the chimp.

The thought of voting for Lieberman is very unpleasant,but the thought of keeping the current asshat is much worse.

why would anyone want to vote for another one?

:shrug: any? please, spill... nothing? come on!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

vote for some other minor candidate who has NO CHANCE!! I could vote for nader. Yeah, these would make a STATEMENT!! It would really get the media's attention, while they are gloating over bush's victory!!

NONE of these contribute anything towards getting the bush regime out of power... Is anything more important??

Of course I would NEVER vote for nader!!

Will I, and can I forsee any circumstance where I would.

I voted yes, and I'm leaning more that way every single day.

Some days I lean more towards believing as I always have, that the lesser evil is the better way to go.

But some days I look back over the past, and through history to what's happened before I even had a chance to participate, and I wonder if I'm really choosing the lesser evil after all. Maybe I'm helping to prolong the general evil. Maybe Nader's right that everyone has to get a lot worse off before they'll snap out of it. Obviously we haven't hit bottom yet. There are still people arguing as to why we should keep marching rightward.

I'm really torn over this. I've been a lifelong Dem. Never voted Green. After Clinton... and 2002... sometimes I just don't know what to do.

Nader has a Republican paid for spot in a resort called Hell. Fuck him. He has ruined his legacy forever. And just let me say that I am more than a little disappointed to see that a a significant minority of DU'ers would vote for him. Maybe we should get Skinner to change the name of the forum. "Suicidal Underground"? "Green Underground"? "Naive Underground"? "Didn't learn my lesson the first time so please kick me again Underground"?

just about all of them, nope, it is all of them. :toast:

I bet the socialists didn't know that

neo-liberalism?

He forgets what country this is and also I think he forgets what the rules of this website are. I re-read them a few minutes ago. Maybe more DU'ers need to do the same judging by this poll.

You know, the one that says in order to beat Republicans we have to become just like them.

Whore out to corporate interests, march in lockstep... are there more rules to this 'neo-liberalism'?

I love it. :eyes:

yes we welcome progressives, but inciting people to vote against a possible nominated dem candidate isn't helping in my view. And I am not talking about this one post but the trend I see in general.

thus it isn't in violation. You guys just don't see eye - to - eye.

I think voting for Ralph Nader is the way to save our democracy

What? Sanctimony (i.e. hypocritical)? Where did you get that exactly?

Maybe if you stated your vision for how a vote for Nader could save our democracy we could find some common ground (maybe). Up to now I have read dozens of posts by some that appear to hold the same view as you but no one has described how they think that will work.

I really don't have a problem with progressive politics, some of it interests me quite a bit. But I think its fair to ask you to expound a little on the vision thing.

you can ask Bush about his plans, since Dem plans (and failure to follow through on those promises) are not an issue for the Dembots

I'm tired of people referring to Greens as extremist left since they don't even believe in socialism

Now that I've got your attention...I'm just kidding. :)

Can't stand the whiny bastard.

And a vote for Nader is a vote against the Democrats. Plain and simple.

If you like Nader's policies, I say vote for the Dem nominee. Because they are likely closer to Nader's philosophy than Bush will ever be. And Nader hasn't a chance in hell to get elected dogcatcher, let alone President.

that's the logic I used in voting for Dukakis, Clinton and Gore.

Dukakis didn't have a chance to let us down. Clinton did, bigtime. Sorry, but an economic boom and fiscal responsibility just aren't enough. We were shoved a mile to the right under 12 years of Reagan/Bush, and he should have shoved back. If he had (instead of passing the Telecom Act, Welfare Reform, NAFTA, reneging on his campaign promise to make a law akin to the Fairness Doctrine, enacting anti-terror measures - did the 'free speech zones' start after that? I've never found out for sure), then I'd be right behind any of the nominees. On some days, I still am.

But some days, I look at Clinton's betrayals, and see how much he furthered the agenda of the right...

in these Nader threads I'm more tempted than ever to vote for him.

You know, the funny thing is that I considered voting for him in 2000. I was in Illinois, and was quite confident that Gore would win it (which he did). But I also thought he would win the election (which he did). Let me amend that: I thought he would win the election and actually get to be president.

Now, I can not justify voting for Nader because there is too much on the line.


And, more importantly,

FUCK HIM.

Jesus Christ, he has to feel at least partially responsible for the mess in 2000. But he doesn't give a shit.

Gore and Bush are exactly the same, eh Nader? The Democrats are the same as the Republicans???
Go to hell.

So, what I meant to say was:

No, I do not foresee any circumstance which would result in my voting for Nader.

Plus 8 maybes. That means a consistent 20% here would rather be "pure" than win. That's insane.

I can't believe so many here wouldn't mind if Bush* were to win again...

Ah, well maybe these Nader voters (upper middle class whites that love their tax cuts, and they're probably profitting off the war through their defense stocks)...Oh did I just insult the GP? I'm sorry...I'm just speaking of that bastard Nader (then again, most of his supporters fit the profile I mentioned)...

Either that or they're simply stupid.

like you two get all worked up over it.

People actually think different than you???? The horror....

I am not used to people here wanting * as president. That one is a new one on me.

I'm not used to people who stick up for Sharon's policies,but there ya go...

...is pretty much an act of complicity in the deaths of untold thousands as Bush advances the only thing he has to sell: war and fear.

It's your choice, but you know when the rubber meets the road there are times when your only choice is the one that will do the least amount of damage.

How many innocent lives are willing to sacrifice because the democratic candidate wasn't as liberal as you would have liked?

That's how I see this. This whole "there's no difference between the parties" bullshit is the cheapest of excuses and I for one will not buy that unwashed bill of goods.

Voting for Nader is the most foolish waste of a vote. Anyone that wants Bush out of office must exercise their gray matter and vote for the only viable candidate, Howard Dean, or if Dean fails to get the Dem bid then any other Dem. Bush has driven this nation over the cliff, the 2004 election is a chance to grab onto the scrub and pull ourselves up. If Bush is elected (by any means) the damage that he will continue to cause to the nation may take decades to correct. Now is not the time to establish a third party, now is the time to defeat the Bushies.

However, that doesn't qualify as a forseeable circumstance.

He must love Bush and anyone who votes for him loves Bush and is a tool for the neo-cons they supposedly loathe. Greens should actively pursue local elections such as mayor and city council, maybe even state elections but NOT NATIONAL PLEASE!!

DAMN YOU NADER!! (I'm shaking my fist)

He probably needs one!

if Lieberman got the nomination. It won't happen so I'm not worried about it. It's not like it matters here anyway. I could vote for the dem 10 ten times and * would still win here. :grr:

wanted to save Muddle some keystrokes

1. Lieberman

2. Kerry

3. Edwards

4. Gephardt

Other than the four Rose Garden Quislings above, I happen to agree more with the Green's stand on the issues than the milquetoast Democrat's semi-Rebublican stances.

In 96 I voted Nader because no chance MN would go to repukes. But in 2000 I voted Gore because I was concerned that Gore could possibly loose MN. I'll not likely vote for Nader in 04 for the same reason.

But the point is that it really depends on the state of the state you are in. For example, I know folks in MT and TX who voted Nader in 2000 because it was obvious Bush would win states, so no harm done.

Strategic voting like this makes sense given electoral system.
But you have to know where your state is at politically speaking.

Am not taking any chances in '04.

I do hope that whatever Dem winds up in the Oval Office will institute IRV nationwide and get rid of the "spoiler" issue.

what happens if there's no Nader or Green candidate and Dems lose anyway. Will you be satisfied that you gave up your democracy then?

... everything that comes out of his mouth is true, and I'm just waiting for the Green Pary to finish petitioning so that I can register Green, but this is too much - it's too potentially destructive when four more years of George W Tiberius is at stake.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush

He would be welcomed by voters there.