The Nader of election 2000 is threatening to rise again

Ralph Nader, who in 2000 was the worst thing to happen to civil liberties and poor people in quite a while, is winding up to do them another favor. The former Green candidate for president is traveling the college circuit, coyly hinting that he'll decide about his political plans later, but few people think he'll sit it out.

Even though even fewer think his running again would be a good idea.

This week, at the University of Wisconsin, Nader again dismissed his effect on the outcome in 2000, saying, "I think the Democrats can fairly be charged with chronic whining, and they ought to look to themselves first and foremost."

Nader not only elects Republicans, he's starting to sound like them.

more: http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/4211463.html

:puke:

...to run, Camejo would.

It seemed to think it was a done deal that Nader wouldnt' do it.

... everyone I know who voted for Nader last time is supporting Dean this time.

While I'm proud to have voted for Ralph in 2000, there is now way I'd do it again. I went with my principles last time. From now on I'll be more pragmatic.

I have said though, if the Dems pick Lieberman (which wont happen); Clark which it seems he has a lot of support (even though he was the king pin in Clinton's saddest time the Kosavo thing); or Kerry I will vote green again.

I know the auto i know the argument, this is an auto. vote for Bush, I just have to draw the line somewhere.

I have said though, if the Dems pick Lieberman (which wont happen); Clark which it seems he has a lot of support (even though he was the king pin in Clinton's saddest time the Kosavo thing); or Kerry I will vote green again.

I know the auto i know the argument, this is an auto. vote for Bush, I just have to draw the line somewhere.

who is my top choice. Moseley-Braun is number 2.

Dean was number three, but his opting out of public financing doesn't sit with with a socialist like me.

Nader does not need to run. And should not. The stakes are too high to risk splitting the Democratic electorate, thus throwing the election to Bush. Nader's efforts, IMO, would be best spent building bridges with the Democratic party. We cannot afford another four years of the current administration.

The stakes were too high before, in 2000, and yet Ralph ran. What makes you think he sees it differently now? And what makes you think Nader wants to "build a bridge" to the Dems? I've never heard him say anything even remotely suggesting this.

But I really don't think that a Nader or Green run would split the vote that much. Most folks are worried about Bu$h being relected, so they'll vote Dem just to get him out.

But if you are very concerned about spoiled elections, be sure to contact our new Democratic President in '05 and let him know it's time to institute ranked voting and clean elections throughout this country, and to clean up the black box voting mess. Because really that's when we'll be able to hold elections that truly reflect the electorate's desires rather than those of the big campaign donors.

Most African-Americans will stay home if Dean gets the nomination. Deduct the African-American and Green vote and Bush will win.

Color me stupid, okay? But WHY will "most African-Americans" stay home if Dean gets the nom? Because he's from Vermont? Because he's not some faux I-feel-your-pain Dem like Clinton? I DON'T GET IT! In times such as these, why wouldn't someone/anyone (be they African-American or no) go out and cast a vote, even it that vote is against someone instead of for someone. Man, I must be naive. I'm still of the school where votes matter, and participation matters.

More fool me, I guess.

Confederate battle flag indicates an insensitivity to decendents of former slaves and of Americans killed in battles where the Confederate battle flag was flown. When you add to that Dean's racist postion on criminal justice, why should any black person vote for this guy or ever again trust a party that would nominate such a guy?

Yeah, right.

That's a voting statistic the Democratic Party is presenting to it's members. The union managaement clearly doesn't speak for the members.

Show me any sort of evidnce whatsoever that Blacks will stay home if Dean gets the nomination. :eyes:

had the black vote in the South and guess who stayed home and let Cleland lose his seat.

nominate Kucinich and co-opt all of their positions...then get Nader's endorsement and 90% of the green and socialist vote...more than enough 3rd party support to push us over the edge.

Uh, no thanks; didn't work with McGovern, wont work with DK. Sorry...

McGovern lost because his hardcore supporters deserted him after the Convention and the Eagleton fiasco, and by the lack of support by many leading Democrats-- not to mention the illegal actvivities of CREEP and Nixon.

Many of McG's most loyal supporters saw the Eagleton debacle as a sell-out to the Humphrey-Muskie-Daley wing of the party, IOW, "politics as usual". They didn't like Eagleton (a Muskie man) getting the slot, and they sure as hell didn't like the way McGovern handled dropping Eagleton, either.

This angered a lot of Democrats, even the more conservative ones, who saw McG (who ran as a decent, honest, "man of his word" in the primaries) as just another waffling politician who'd do anything to get elected. It didn't have as much to do with his views (which most Democrats agreed with at the time, BTW) as folk like to think it did.

And then add on all that "Democrats for Nixon" shakedown crap that was going on and it's plain to see that Nixon would have steamrollered ANYONE-- even Jesus himself.

If you haven't read "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972" by Hunter S. Thompson, I'd highly recommend it. It's an extremely accurate portrayal of the 1972 race, and especially of the rise and fall of the McGovern campaign.

We'd lose 40% of our supporters because DK is, frankly, far too left on most issues.

And of course Dennis looks too far left to someone sitting on the far right edge. But that's a perspective issue, not a reality issue.

We can be good kids and do what the Republicans want or be bad kids and pick our own candidate.

that we lose.

that the so-called "moderate" vote would really want four more years of the disaster visited on them by GWB?

Most of the polls still show that "unnamed democrat" still kicks the pants off BushCo-- that leads me to believe we could even nominate "inanimate carbon rod" and still trounce the bastards.

We WILL win 2004, no matter what dirty tricks BushCo plays in FL or elsewhere. Last election, less than 1/4 of eligible voters in this country voted for GWB. That means we have more than enough voters to send him packing.

The trick is to get our people out to the polls, not trying to convince lukewarm Bushites to change their minds.

What do you want? Sickness and ignorance and poverty? Nice to know where Dean supporters are coming from.

why he didn't see the comedy or opportunity of the california gov's election is beyond me.

little snip from original article:

At virtually the same time, speaking on Fox News just before the California recall vote, he urged, "I think if people would stop saying well, I'm going to right away go for who I think is going to win, they're going to never be able to support a regeneration of politics, which often starts with small starts."

-------------------------------------------

yeah ralph; "small starts".

so he didn't need to.

Nader got what he wanted. He seems satisfied.

Gee, I hope the Democrats don't nominate someone unacceptable to the 3 million or more Greens this time seeing as how there's someone running who can get the Democratic and the Green vote.

What do you think the Democrats will do?

Ball to the Greens at that point.

The best way to ensure a margin of victory wide enough to overcome the Black Box margin is to nominate the coalition candidate.

Gore's votes plus Nader's votes in 2000 beat Bush by 4 million.

Independents who want Bush out will vote for the Democrat, but Greens, many of whom support what not too long ago would have been considered traditional liberal Democratic values, may not.

The ball is in the Democrats' court whether or not to be concerned with producing an unassailable margin of victory or not.

... and I don't expect them to this time, either. Sorry, *Democrats* will select the *Democratic* candidiate. When the Greens are ready to bring something to the table and commit to bringing something to the table, give us a ring.

Until then, have a nice life.

Or they can be pissy.

I'm a Democrat. Democrats are selecting the Democratic candidate.

Elitists are pushing a candidate with little to offer other than misplaced anger, and it shows in what passes for the "witty putdowns" of his supporters.

Rude Dean supporters are doing everything they can to make sure they won't have the support of the Democrats who are supporting other candidates for the nomination by using stupid put-down one-liners and lording their "front runner" over everyone else.

For example, he could be the front runner because more people support him. Having this holier-than-thou Kucinich crap shoved down our throats gets annoying as hell, too. If DK were everything you folks think he is, people would be flocking to his campaign, and they're *not*! I'm sick and tired of hearing this more-than-slightly condescending "If people only realized what a great cadidate he was blah, blah, blah..." meme spouted at those of us who support other candidates I could SCREAM! He's a marginal, left-wing candidate whose numbers accurately reflect where he stands in the party.

:puke:

... nominate someone who would draw in 3 million 'Green' votes and run off 10 million *Democrat* votes?

Reality check for the Kucinich party, waiter. :eyes:

70% of Americans said they want universal health care. Kucinich has a plan for universal health care. Dean does not.

The reason Dennis is far behind Dean, et al., is because the media anointed him as one of the frontrunners before any polls were ever taken. Thus, his name got out there, and Kucinich's name did not. Thus, the lead in the polls.

Dean is an establishment candidate anointed by the establishment media.

And no major Democratic candidate, in Nader's mind, could possibly compare to himself. Howard Dean? "He can't deliver," Nader dismissively told The Nation. "He can be George McGovern on steroids, but when he gets into the corporate prison called the White House, he can't deliver."

:shrug: :shrug:
hmmmm that is all I have to say

When are the leaders of the Democratic party going to stop worrying about members of other parties and work on getting the 10 million Democrats who voted for Bush, to vote for the nominee of their own party?

Not sure why most dems don't bring that up in conversations about election 2000 and the "Nader" or "voting your conscience" spoiler effect.

GreenInNC wrote"...When are the leaders of the Democratic party going to stop worrying about members of other parties and work on getting the 10 million Democrats who voted for Bush, to vote for the nominee of their own party?"

The idea that the main problem for democrats is getting Democrats to vote for the Democratic nominee, is way off the mark. The problem is that Democrats only account for 32% of the electorate, and the other 68% is not so loyal to the Democratic nominee.

The election will be decided by the middle of the electorate - not by the Democrats or the Republicans.

"Hey - I have an idea! Let's whine about the ineffectiveness of the Democratic Party - their unliberal movements, and their ability to win elections. If we whine together loudly enough, people might magically begin to look at us, and we might end-up with a whole 2% of the general election vote! There's no difference between the Dems and the GOP, right? Right? Who cares if Bush is re-elected? That'd be GOOD for America! Remember - up is down, and left is right: our soldiers dying is a sign of progress. Bombings in Iraq are progress. Civil liberties being raped is progress! And you can thank US!"

(insert more whining here. Pretty ironic, coming from a man who hasn't done a legitimate thing to advance his alleged cause in a long, long time. Was he ever a crash dummy in some of those car tests? One would think..)

Maybe Nader is trying to tell the Democrats and the media that they had better start giving Kucinich a chance at some exposure (instead of manufacturing lead candidates like they have so far this campaign), or otherwise he will run in 2004 and take votes from the Democratic candidate, as he did in 2000.

I hope he does if Kucinich does not get the nomination. What does it really matter if Bush is re-elected? Bush is not all that different from Dean or Kerry or Edwards or Gephardt or Clark, as far as I can tell, and I have been following politics for a long long time.....