Afraid of Nader? Then recruit 2 non-voters to vote DEMOCRATIC

It's unbelievable how Nader's candidacy has gotten so many Democrats into fits about how he'll "ruin" our chances for victory this year. You'd think the man had some sort of magical mystical power that lured Democrats away from the party.

Also, bashing Nader supporters and trying to change the minds of those who are dead-set against Kerry is NOT productive. I have a MUCH better method for ensuring our eventual victory on November 2.

Instead of wasting your anger on a Nader supporter, go out and recruit two previous non-voters to vote for the DEMOCRATS. Almost half of the eligible electorate DID NOT VOTE in 2000-- a frightening number in a so-called "democracy".

If we recruit even one-tenth of the previous non-voters, we'll have a fool- (and theft-) proof margin, AND a solid mandate to boot.

All this energy p*ssing and moaning about a guy who probably won't get on the ballot in most states is counterproductive, to say the least. Let's convince those non-voters that they NEED to vote for Democrats this year.

If we do this, Ralph Nader will go down in history as another asterisk.

I register voters all around the year in my mainly college community, the hot (or should I say cold) bed of apathy towards anything at all political. Getting students registered and out to vote is like prying 10,000 barnacles from the rusty hull of a ship.

Their reasoning was let the people have what they want, do not try to change minds. Voters are the people who give money. These are good people well informed on local issues, but they did not see the national impact. I hope we made a bit of a change.

I'm voting Nader.
Are your visions of grander strong enough to convert me?
I am a wee lost sheep that needs guiding back to meee flock....

what I meant is that, if Democracts truly want to win, then they need to focus on getting uncommitteds/non-voters to vote for our candidates instead of Nader. You seem pretty convinced you'll vote for Nader no matter what I do/say, so why waste my efforts on you?

If you want to vote for Nader, that's your right, and I respect your right to vote for whomever you want. It's plain to see my time would be better spent recruiting non-voters instead of you to vote for my party and candidates.

I was gonna complement you then I had a sudden pissie fit. I men't to reply to the originator.

Iv'e been real turned off by alot of negativity against third party voting here at DU. It just makes me want to vote ABK.

I'm not exactly ecstatic about Kerry, either, but I'll vote for him because I'm a Democrat first. And besides, I've got a lot of local races where I can truly make a difference, like taking back my state's legislature.

I think we do more good, as liberals and progressives, by getting NEW people involved-- railing against Nader and/or Greens does us no good. I'm looking forward to working with the local Greens on races where they don't have candidates, because it's good to have allies-- especially ones who share many of your views on issues.

After all, if we want to rank on other people, Repubs make MUCH better targets :evilgrin:

and should be treated just like enemy freepers... tombstoned. I'm not "scared" of anybody. I just very strongly dislike my political enemies and Nader and his supporters are my enemy. Why? Because they are out to defeat my candidate, Kerry.

Silence them. Tombstone them. Its the way of politics. If they don't like it, tough shit.

Thanks for your post.

would talk like this.

If you're not afraid of Naderites, then why are you so gung-ho to silence them? Is John Kerry really that weak a candidate that the likes of Nader will cause him damage?

Like I said, all we need are one-tenth to one-fifth of those who didn't vote in 2000. That's not very many-- and people are more pissed off with Dubya now than they were then.

This should be a cakewalk for us, and all this talk about Nader wastes our valuable energy and time. And talk of "destroying" Nader doesn't make us more attractive-- it makes us look like we're so insecure about our candidate that we have to resort to attacking somebody who probably won't be on the ballot in most states.

I just spent eight months working on a campaign that brought scads of new voters and eager activists into my state party-- most of whom didn't even VOTE in 2000. These people are NOT leaving now, since they're now in positions of power within the party. We didn't steal any Repubs from anywhere, we just found Democrats who hadn't participated yet.

We CAN do it. It's a matter of priorities, and using our energy efficiently. Wasting our anger on Nader is not worth it. We'll alienate more potential voters than we'll attract.

Use the energy you use to stifle Naderites to bring a new Democrat into the party. It's much easier, and worth much more in the long run.

you're spewing Naderite bullshit. You must not know politics very well.

Rule #1: Take out the enemy before they take you out. Nader and his supporters are the enemy. I really don't give a fat rat's butt what it "looks like". The only people pissed off about the way it "looks" or anyone that whines because taking out Nader doesn't seem "democratic" probably isn't a Democrat anyway. These lines are nothing but tactics to divert attention.

Its unthinkable, but true, that we Democrats should have to watch our backs because the far left is trying to screw us just like Bush. Abbie Hoffman got it right: Everything is topsy turvy.

It seems he's scared you so mush that you forgot the description of DEMOCRACY. And even chose your next president a year in advance... A guy who gave him the go ahead on anything he wanted?

n/t

Why postpone the inevitable. The Future is NOW!!!!!

that would convince me otherwise.

Recruit some non-voters. Or even work on some swing voters who have not yet decided. There is a novel idea, and where the riches lie.

:thumbsup:

of non voters.

I am missing your point...

Did you mean to address this to me?

will not watch the house , the senate , or even the news. They are engaged in local politics whether they know it or not. I was talking to friends from Michigan, they are so angry, it was the devistation of Engler they were mad about. They do like the new Canadian Gov. but the sin taxes are to high.

made my case clear. Non voters can be converted if you can deal with their experience.

In Minnesota, we suprised the hell out of EVERYONE (including the state party) by getting previous non-voters on board to support Dennis Kucinich. With almost no money, no press coverage, and an almost deliberate snubbing by the party heirarchy, we still got 17% of the vote, due to a dedicated core group of volunteers-- many of whom were first-time activists.

These were people who had either NEVER participated in the process, or had dropped out after being involved during the first Wellstone race in 1990. Most of them had never been part of our state's caucus process, and now they're not only delegates to our state's convention, but in the party leadership at the precinct, county, congressional district AND state level.

By making the political personal with these folk, we've got them to get active, and GROW the party by reaching out to oft-ignored groups.

It's much much easier to get a non-committed/disaffected voter to support your candidate than it is to get somebody who's already strongly committed to another.

We've got 50% of the population who doesn't even VOTE. The numbers are on our side. Dubya gets more unpopular every second.

This is our race to lose this year. We need to use our time wisely, and get support where we can. Wooing dogmatic Nader supporters is a waste of time and energy.

To quote a cliche, let's work smarter, not harder.

I don't know about politics in Michigan.:shrug:

against all odds, an apathetic press and a sometime-hostile party heirarchy, we did exactly that.

We got a group of political neophytes, many whom were non-voters, and somehow got 17% of the vote with no money, no media coverage, but a lot of straight-up grassroots efforts aimed at addressing people's issues.

That's exactly how Wellstone won in 1990, too. I was there-- I helped organize a precint. We door-knocked, phone-banked, did visability everywhere. And somehow, against all odds, we WON!

It's definately easier to get non-voters or undecideds on board than it is to browbeat a Naderite into voting for our candidates.

And it's totally within our reach this year. Shrub is not liked, and even detested, in large parts of this country. I see it everywhere, even when I'm walking around town. NOBODY likes that whistle-ass. Previous non-voters are hating him too, and want to replace him.

We will win this one for Democrats in 2004.

There is something inherently un-democratic about requesting Nader to stay out of the race when you stop to think about it.

Lord knows about the LAST thing I want is four more years of * and company. (as a matter of fact I'd probably rather have four consecutive root canals with no Novacaine and a dull drill bit).

But I'm not prepared to tell somebody you can't/should not run.

but I'll decline the four root canals if possible :D

We only have a finite amout of resources, and we need to use them wisely. Instead of bashing a Nader voter, go talk to your apolitical neighbor whose job just got outsourced to India. I bet he'd vote for a Democrat.

Instead of ignoring the issues Nader raises, ADDRESS THEM-- especially if you're talking to the woman at work who's trying to pay for her mother's skyrocketing prescription medications. I bet she'd vote for a Democrat, too.

It's all about getting the most bang for the buck. The bucks are limited, but we've got People Power. We can do this, and we will, if we focus on the right things like getting new voters, instead of on the wrong things like bashing Nader.

:)

He voted for the Iraq war and Patriot Act.

How does Kerry explain himself out of that one?

:)

Would they rather have the adminstration that *engineered* them?

Is everything about the past, or is anything about the future?

The IWR and PA are the lamest excuses out there.

You mean you couldn't talk to your apolitical neighbor whose job just got outsourced to India without talking about it as a "Nader issue?" John Kerry has a plan to remedy outsourcing, one that could actually get passed; Nader doesn't.

You mean you couldn't talk to the woman at work who's trying to pay for her mother's skyrocketing prescription medications without talking about it as a "Nader issue?" John Kerry has a plan for affordable healthcare that has a chance of passing; Nader doesn't.

Democrats have been fighting for these issues for years, and have made much more progress, and fought off far more corruption from Republicans, than Nader ever dreamed. Words are nice; actions are more difficult, and in Congress, reality is that Republicans exist and they vote on legislation.

These are NOT "Nader issues."

I said the ISSUES that Nader BRINGS UP-- NOT Nader issues.

Face it: Kerry's current medical care plan is NOT Universal health care. It does NOT cover mental health or dental very well. His plan will do NOTHING for me: an unemployed male, who can't afford his COBRA payment who has a pre-existing mental illness that denies me coverage by insurance companies and HMOs. My prescriptions ALONE cost me $350 a month-- that DOES NOT continue doctor's visits and counselling visits, which allow me to function as a normal, productive human being.

Once again, how will Kerry's push for "affordable" medical insurance help somebody like me? I STILL won't be covered-- and many others I know in my position won't be covered, either.

Kerry's fair trade stance is also problematic for many perspective voters. Kerry talks nice about enforcing the so-called "side agreements" to NAFTA and "fixing" seriously flawed and heavily pro-corporate trade agreements, but he has said NOTHING about curbing the power that the WTO has over sovereign governments. He also supported most favored nation status for China, a country with a very problematic human rights record, and which is known to use slave labor to produce its goods.

Like it or not, Kerry is weak on these issues, as he is on continuing the Iraq war and allowing the Patriot Act to stand. And these are the issues that Nader will bring up-- you can bet on it.

wimp

and I prefer the term "wuss" ;)

It appears to me that Nader is a waste of much needed resources.

After all, isn't he running to give those people the choice of voting for him?

http://www.themmob.com/index.htm

But I won't stop there.