Nader at the Press Club, I think it's very positive sounding

Here's hoping he can pull those right-wing votes or will ditch at the last minute if it doesn't look like that plan is working.

It's long, but very worth reading, whether ya hate him or not: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0224-03.htm

Don't get me wrong. I'm still livid at Ralph for 2000. No matter which way you slice it I think he did have a negative impact on Gore's campaign (although Gore was not without his own faults in how he handled it).

But something seems different this time. I don't know what it is but I have the feeling this time around he may be right. Even if his goal is to keep Kerry or Edwards on a somewhat aggresive, liberal track....or even just to add to the anti-* voices. I'm taking a wait and see approach but something in my gut tells me that this time he may have a better plan.

This is not the "better plan" year.

This isn't even the year for ideals.

This is win at all costs because otherwise we are dead. I'm not speaking metaphorically. I'm speaking corpses piled high.

The man who comes in is going to be spending ALL his time dealing with devastation. He better be a pragmatist and really good at thinking on his feet. Because the shit is coming thick and fast and piling high.

We aren't getting utopia. We may get bare survival.

was willing to sell this nation out once, he'll have no problem doing it twice.

Status quo with hair mousse is neither pragmatic nor will it address the devastation.

What is imperative is more change, fundamental systemic, earth-moving, yes, revolutionary change, NOW.

And even that will be ineffective. Even that will be a compromise.

But it could mean fewer deaths. And at this point, that is the best we can hope for.

I wish he would have just come out and supported the dem nominee.

But assuming that isn't happening I just don't think that he is going to have much of an impact. And I'm convinced that he is going to drop out and support the democratic nominee at some point.

I understand where you're coming from, but I do think this is the year for "better plans". It had better be because our plan for 2000 didn't work very well, did it?

I hadn't been paying Nader a lot of attention except to ask him to back Kucinich instead of running himself, but the more I listen, the more convinced I become he's got something up his sleeve that will smash Bush and his junta to smithereens enabling the Democrats to take charge.

...I was thinking it's really boneheaded to assume that the only voters out there who will cast a vote for Nader are disillusioned Democrats. After all, there are a lot of Republicans who dispise the currrent administration, but hate Democrats to such a degree that they wouldn't vote for them if their life depended on it. If they're still interested in casting a vote (protest?) then they can stick a thumb in the eye of the President by voting for Ralph Nader.

I am sorry to say I think that is delusional. Nader, although he is running as independent this year is closely associated with the green party. GOP protest voters will not cast a vote for a guy who ran on a ticket that is considered more liberal than the democrats. If the GOP want to cast a protest vote, they will vote libertarian or constitution party. So, with all due respect, I must disagree.

Just so long as his base is cut into.

Isn't that a pretty fair description of a lot of Republicans?

I recently read an article by a Republican voter who was very upset with Bush. As angry as he was he never mentioned the possiblity of voting Democratic. Instead, he talked more about holing up in his house with a gun.

<edit> Too, if you notice, Nader was talking about corporate America buying and running the country. You don't think there are a lot of Republicans who will agree with that?

and yes, I am sure there are many republicans upset with the corporate welfare happening in this country. That does not, by any stretch of the imagination mean they will vote for Nader! They have other 3rd party options available. Like I stated in my last post.

From exit polling, it looks like Nader got 1% of the Republican vote:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html

I know at least TWO republicans, and a republican-leaning independent who voted for Nader in 2000. Family members, so I know it's true.

They hated the GOP, but couldn't stand the dems after Clinton. They would have probably voted Bush before Gore.

Nader is pro gun rights, anti-imperialism, privacy rights, and against financial and corporate malfesance -- so although they disagreed on many topics, at least there were things they strongly agreed with.

I really do find it presumptuous to assume that every vote that Nader gets, is a vote "lost" from the democrats.

No one "owns" anyone else, and it's simplistic to determine another's politics and to assume it fits into a two-box system.

You might know a whopping 2 republicans who voted for Nader in 2000 but the history of the situation is that Nader took more votes away from Gore then he did bu$h. It is facts, not presumption. If you are considering voting for Nader then you will be case in point.

Gore "TOOK" votes - like he owned them? Who gave him so much privelege?

It is presumptuous to assume that people are simplistic in their issues and politics. Over-simplification is bad strategy. It is arrogant to over-simplify. This turns voters off.

Don't you think that there are a lot of non-voters out there who don't vote because it pisses them off that some party assumes that it has their votes, regardless of any issues - just because of bullying, fear-mongering, ostracism, etc.

Furthermore, isn't it convenient for the DLC, and those responsible for Gore to simply blame nader? It shows that they will not take responsibility. Why not make them take responsibility, as opposed to making y'all a bunch of freaking ABB dittoheads?

Why don't YOU open up to the fact that Nader needs to take responsiblity for what he did in 2000? I see you are quite quick to hold the democrats and the DLC responsible yet you want to shirk Nader's responsibility. I am sure you are also one who is considering voting 3rd party this year, therefore refusing to hold the republicans responsible.

It looks like you only like responsibility when it is convienient for you and your ideals.

BTW, I see many simplistic voters. How many won't vote for one of the frontrunners because of their support for IWR? How many will vote republican simply because they don't want their taxes raised? I think more voters than not are simplistic.

Democrats have to clean their own house. Nader isn't even a Green this time.
Why didn't any US Senator sponsor the House initiative to investigate voter disenfranchisement in african-american districts?
That is one of many questions left before us.

Glad to see another inquisitive mind wading into the fray. :wave:

Think of myself as a citizen more than anything else. The idea of "party loyalty" works both ways.
Many who voted Nader in 2000 were voting Green Party. Now that Nader is completely independent, not as compelling a figure; although he should do whatever he wants.

Which is cool too.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I don't care about Nader. If Nader ran, he ran. I am talking about the Democratic Party and their responsibility to run. They didn't need Nader voters to win, they needed non-voters and disenfranchised voters. They had a whole pool of voters they could have drawn from INCLUDING DEMOCRATS.

Its easy to blame Nader. Of course Dem Leadership want everyone blaming nader, because then no one is blaming the Democratic Leadership. Everyone is going around helping the democratic leadership pass the buck on why it did not WIN elections or WIN WON elections.

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

Dunno why I should be, though, since I have been saying all along I'd vote for the Dem on the ballot. *scratching head*

Huh.

Guess some folks just can't get past labels??

I am sure this issue strikes a chord with you. I am of the mind-set that Nader cost Gore Florida (although I am sure there will be some who want to argue that issue with me).

What I am saying is I understand your frustration and impatience.

But I am also being realistic that election reform won't happen this year, before November 2. I think Nader is should sit this one out. He will do more harm then good.

Let people be angry about 2000. It is wound that hasn't healed and with Nader running, that wound is now gushing blood and I for one don't blame people in the least for being irate with Nader.

then the Bu$h theft issue can also be kept alive.

Why does every one blame Nader, and not the DLC?

Nader didn't run in 2002, after all.

What's going on here?

If Nader would have stayed out of swing states like he said he would, then Gore would have won enough votes and the word "recount" would not be in our history books.

That is all Nader.

There were voters scrubbed from the voting polls, a helluva lot of NON-VOTERS, dems who voted for Bush (and I'm not talking by mistake, either), other third party voters, and -- egads! Republican, Independent and other disenfranchised voters.

Bad strategy cost Gore votes in Florida. He's a politician, and he has strategists. I think that they should have been creative enough to get the votes they needed from all of the other people out there who weren't voting for Gore.

This blame game is childish, and lets the DLC escape responsibilities. Why is no one blaming them and their bad strategy?

You are right. A LOT of issues come into play when we look at election 2000.

Sadly, an awful lot of people focus only on NAder and not on everything else that happened.

Which means all the other factors can come into play again because not enough people are trying to do something about THEM.

Thank you. I am very concerned about what is going on with the Dem party, and I think an awful lot of it could be solved once people start demanding accountability from the DLC. I hate to say it, but Nader bashing sounds like whining.

The thing that made me so upset following the 2000 elections was that the Dem Party did not address the disenfranchisement of voters...it was startling and made me very worried about the DLC and what was going on. I still am at a loss.

I hope that it becomes clear that avoiding real problems is not going to help. Voter enfranchisement and registration must be addressed at the sake of alienating a large, core base instead of trying to blame Nader and not taking responsibility for bad strategy. Good strategy? Empowering the core base, many non-voters, through registration, education, and ENFRANCHISEMENT.

Check out my website for other ways we can, and should, empower the voters.

Instant Runoff Voting!

Now, that will be a good step towards enfranchisement!

IRV is the most popular of the ranked voting methods, but it is still prone to the spoiler effect. It just shows up in the secnd round rather than the first.

I prefer the other types, Borda, Condorcet, and Cumulative to IRV but will take IRV if that's what we can get for now.

... that celebrates the exclusion of voices, especially voices on the left. I was raised to understand that liberalism embraces pluralism and diversity.

At this rate, how many weeks before Bob Dole is castigated as "too liberal?"

...an idea worth contemplating.

and spites the poor by empowering their enemies.

Wait. That's not liberalism: that's Naderism.

(As for this nonsensical phrase "celebrates the exclusion of voices"--no, I am lamenting the splitting of the non-reactionary vote.)

I have this bridge...

Let's hope he backs out before the ballots are printed up.