Will Nader and Green Voters become irrelevant after Nov. 2nd?

What happens to the Green and LeftofGreen if the Dems win the election but it wasn't because of the green leaning people...but the Moderate Center?? Would that not give more incentive for the Dems to move to the center forever?? Would that in the end make the green people completely irrelevant as a political player? Seeing as how Dems can win without them and the right wins only if they can strip the Moderates from the Dems?? In the end...it would mean that we would always be Center,
Right of Center, and the Fringe on the left would be completely shut out.

The only fringe that will be allowed to push their agenda will be the Far right, since that is basically the only thing that gets them elected.....What if come Nov. 2nd the Left's fringe doesn't actually help but still doesn't show any impact?? hmm.....

:shrug:

as a movement influencing the electorate's thinking than as a voting block trying to press a political candidate into a position they'd like.

So I think after Kerry is elected, they can get moving, and hopefully have impact they can't have with Republicans controlling everything. I think there's much we can do, but most of it happens between elections at the grassroots, not right before them nagging the candidates.

Sorry. Candidates are supposed to represent the people, therefore it behooves the people to make their wants known to them.

If Kerry wins by a nose, but there is a 2-3% Green vote the Left will be in a real position to exert influence over the new president. If that happens Kerry would be wise to look to his Left flank, not to his Right. It could be a similar situation as Richard Nixon faced after narrowly winning in 1968 and carefully courting the Wallace voters for 1972.

Ralph/Ross in '04?

Or not...

many many Greens are saying this isn't the year, and are not supporting Nader.

The Green Party is very relevant. But you don't start at the top. They need to continue to build a solid foundation at the grass-roots level, winning town/city/county and then state elections. At the same time, building coalitions with other like-minded citizens.
Nader, on the other hand, has lost the support he once had enjoyed. It is a sad thing for many of us who previously admired him.

You mean like this?

http://www.greens.org/elections/

1) Democrats win, greens take larger than the margin of victory --> Dems don't need the greens.

2) Democrats win and the Greens get less than the margin of victory. Analogous to #1.

3) The Democrats lose and the Greens get larger than the margin of victory. This implies that support on the left cannot be relied upon in a general election. Greens are ignored.

4) The Democrats lose, the greens get less than margin of victory. This implies pandering to them isn't sufficient for victory.

The only way to keep the Dems from moving to the right is to have leftist voters in line. But that is up to them.

Taken with the left's penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, I think that if the left isn't with the Democrats they have to be counted as not relevant. The demands would put most candidates too far out of the mainstream to win elections and the left has repeatedly demonstrated that it doesn't have the determination to win in practical terms. I say this as someone is in agreement with most of the positions on the left, but I also live on planet Earth. I all too well recall the days when you couldn't even get the Maoists and the Marxist-Leninists to be civil to each other. The left has never gotten along with itself consistently enough to be relied upon.

No promises for the future though. Gotta actually offer something worth voting for, ya know?

Libertarians are also running. Shouldn't they also be bashed? Shouldn't we all adopt the Fascist view that only two parties are allowed to run candidates for office, and that just in case the people get funny ideas about democracy, we will keep the Electoral College in place in order to dilute the popular will.

There is a certain similarity to what the US is doing in Iraq. We won't allow democratic elections in Iraq because to do so would permit the election of an Islamic Shia government. Like we do in US electoral politics, the CPA is picking and choosing which views will be allowed to be aired and discussed, and which ideological bent will be accepted in candidates.

Is through Dem victory. If the Dems lose they go farther to the center. If they win then they have to shore up the left flank for future runs because they have something to lose. Bush Sr lost in 92 because the rad right abandoned him for breaking the no new taxes pledge, and Gore lost in 2000 because Nader had his little rad left group grope.

In a winner take all representative republic, the fringe is influential only to the degree that people of at least remotely similar views are holding the reins. Or, alternatively, ask yourself just how much Kerry is going after the Naderites who cost Gore the 2000 election. Yup, not a bit. So the whole "either the Dems will listen to us or we'll take our marbles and go home" strategy was completely self-defeating for the far left.

When the vast majority of the country isn't in agreement, you *shouldn't* get undue influence at the national level. We all see this clear as day with the Christian right. We just can't/won't see it in ourselves.

We should vote for people who ignore us. That makes perfect sense.

and frankly, I am getting tired of being called one.

I am not taking hostages.

I am not bombing buildings.

I am not running guns.


Just because I'd like to see some changes in our policies and the structure of our government does not make me some wild-eyed nut.

I'm talking about voting for anyone but kerry just to placate your passions and end our nation's progress. In fact, reverse it.