Kerry Must Directly Confront Nader

One of Gore's biggest mistakes was ignoring Nader and letting Nader ruthlessly savage him. It is absolutely critical in this race that Kerry exposes Nader's current self as an delusional, conspiratorial maniac who is betraying the principles he once fought for over an irrational and potentially lethal egotrip.

Kerry needs to go to the heart of the matter. He must attack Nader directly and campaign against Nader as well as Bush in states where Nader is strong. He MUST emphasize that in every competitive state, a vote for Nader is a vote for four more years of Bush.

Additionally, Kerry should emphasize a few policies - one, he should stress that he is a true national leader who will be pragmatic and considerate, rejecting political purism (which will appeal to swing voters who may see Kerry as the moderate between the two extremes of Nader and Bush), and two genuinely emphasize the enormous differences between Bush and Kerry, speaking out strongly for a broad progressive agenda, for instance on health care, and aggressively taking on Bush on foreign policy and Iraq. Despite some DU'ers protests, Kerry can genuinely claim to have been misled by Bush and that will ring true to large portions of the country, which have followed Kerry's trajectory in now opposing the war. Also Kerry should speak out strongly on the environment, which will attract lots of Green-Party types and environmentalists.

(I have less hope of this next demand, but I think it would be politically brilliant and wonderful if Kerry came out in favor of things like abolishing the electoral college, banning gerrymandering, IRV, possibly proportional representation in the House.)

I also think Kerry should debate Nader at some points.

What do you all think?

if bush agree to a debate..GW is a coward.

for every green he gets, he would lose about 4 moderates.

Which I doubt would happen.

Politics is not a zero-sum game.

2000: Ralph Nader has the Green Party, which means he has a small army of people to collect signatures so he can get on the ballot everywhere. The Green Party can raise money for him. Even with this, he pulls 2-3% nationally. Some argue that this cost Gore the election, but such an argument *cough* ChoicePoint *cough* ignores some other significant factors. Still, a residue of bitterness lingers.

2004: Ralph Nader has no party, which means he has no people to get him on the ballot anywhere. He has no one to raise money for him. Eight months before the general election, one poll has him at 7% and lots of people start chewing on the inside of their cheecks with visions of Florida dancing in their heads.

The only thing Nader has going for him is the free media he is getting, and that free media has been augmented because 7% of people had fun picking his name when it didn't count. Count on that number dropping, especially if he stops getting free media or if the media story becomes 'Nader Only On Ballot In Maryland and Idaho.'

Worrying about Nader right now is fighting the last war. Things are different. Way different.

Memo to Kerry: DO NOT go after Ralph. You will give him more free press.

:)

Nader's strengths are name recognition and free media. Confronting Nader will only increase his strength. As you point out, if ignored his campaign will die because of lack of organizations (unless of course Greens change their collective minds and embrace Nader which I don't think they will do).

Rather than spend energy confronting Nader, Kerry would be well advised to focus on figuring out how to effectively embrace Kucinich. But there is plenty of time for that, four months. Embracing Kucinich would help to undermine Nader without giving him additional media attention.

...certainly does make this more likely.


"Rather than spend energy confronting Nader, Kerry would be well advised to focus on figuring out how to effectively embrace Kucinich."

Ignoring him just makes him appear insignifigant. Addressing him shows that he believes him to be a threat.

I think ignoring the idiot and ridiculing him is the way to go. Addressing him formally just legitimizes him more than he deserves.

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

We should all write the Kerry campaign and encourage him to do just that.

Here is the contact info: http://www.johnkerry.com/contact/

which is absolutely none whatsover. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Rien.

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

I say lets take Nader behind the warehouse and beat the shit out of him!

Just for the record I do not support Nader this time around.

True, Nader is polling 7% but if we could look at the numbers from the states where he is actually on the ballot, I think we would see a much smaller number. Plus, he has a very long row to hoe before he even gets on enough ballots to make a dent.

Nader is a fringe candidate, and nothing will bring him to being a contender faster than Kerry showering attention upon him. He's got himself to worry about more than what Nader is doing - that's for his support to worry about.

First of all, I simply don't think its possible to persuade people who are inclined to vote Nader to vote for Kerry, at least not in a way that isn't likely to alienate a far larger population of voters. Put simply, if four years of George Bush hasn't convinced these people that this country would be better off with a Democratic president, nothing will.

Second, why give Ralph Nader any more exposure? He's not likely to have the money to run television ads. He probably won't get mentioned in the national news media except in connection with stories on polls. If Kerry picks a fight with Nader, he elevates him to the status of a major candidate. It also makes Kerry look weak.

I think we're just going to have to accept the fact that Nader will get his 2% of the vote, possibly a little less this time, and plan accordingly.

Before people accuse me of writing off the "left" in this election, let me point out that Nader voters are not an ideologically coherent voting block that can be targeted through issue-based appeals. They are united primarily by a general dissatisfaction with two-party politics. Nearly two-thirds of the Nader voters in 2000 wouldn't have voted Democratic even if Nader had dropped out.

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