|
Post by judes on Jun 22, 2007 7:00:04 GMT -6
I'm hearing rumblings Ralph Nader may run for president. I think this is a good idea. I can't really vote for any of the current lot. Nader has been outspoken on our lousy trade policies, and a diehard consumer advocate. With all the crap being imported to this country filled with toxins and who knows what else, I think we need someone like Nader. He was on CNN discussing it. He said he needs 1000 volunteers before he decides. What do you all think?
|
|
|
Post by xtra on Jun 22, 2007 17:19:42 GMT -6
I think he is too green and doesnt care about the Constitution.
Im gonna change parties from independant to Rep. to vote for Ron Paul.
It aint gonna matter, clinton or rudi will win and our country will sink deeper into the cess pool.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 22, 2007 20:03:55 GMT -6
I'll vote for Ron Paul if I get the chance. I think his best chance is to run as an independent or as one of the 3rd party candidates. I'd like to see him run on either the Reform Party ticket or the American Independent Party ticket.
I know his tendency is toward the Libertarian Party. However, he almost seems trapped in Libertarian dogma, and feels a need to justify his positions from a libertarian standpoint. He'd be much better served adopting the Reform Party's positions or the American Independent Party's positions.
I also like Ralph Nader. He sounds more aggressively anti-globalization than Paul does, though it remains to be seen how he'd actually vote on any free trade legislation. However, I don't hear enough emphasis from Nader on the dangers of our current national debt and deficit, or enough concern about how our economy is built on unsustainable credit growth and monetary expansion. (And this is the issue where Ron Paul truly stands out.)
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jun 30, 2007 5:32:42 GMT -6
Unfortunately to most voters Nader comes off as a kook, I think he would do better to throw his support to a 3rd party candidate such as Paul rather than run on his own again and be a spoiler like he was in 2000 - If Gore had got Nader's votes there would have been enough momentum to overcome the voting shenanigans in Florida and we would not be in this mess today, and Gores popular vote count would have been even more decisive thus making it that much more dificult for the partisan stacked supreme court to have done their dirty work.
Unfortunately the Greens by siding with Nader betrayed their true champion on the environment, for that I could never see myself supporting a Nader candidacy. Thanks to Nader we have had 7 years of Bush-Cheney.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 5, 2007 13:22:38 GMT -6
While its fun having some 2000 mythology, its absolutely incorrect that Nader spoiled 2000. I've looked at numbers both nationally and locally and a strong third party brings more voters into the process.
What the end result does not tell you is all the voters Nader brought in that ended up voting for Gore, but otherwise would have stayed home. I think Lieberman took many more votes from Gore than Nader could have ever done.
Ironically, at least on the foreign policy end, Gore ran as the kind of Democrat that GW turned out to be. Remember I am not a Nation Builder, geeze, I wish that was the case.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 5, 2007 17:45:22 GMT -6
Mythology? hardly. The Naderites can try to rationalize in whatever way makes them feel better, the bottom line is that Nader siphoned away voters who were more likely to vote for Gore than Bush and therefore helped put Bush into office.
Not sure what numbers you are looking at, but Nader got approx 3% of the vote. To be fair lets say that Gore got 2% of that vote and the other 1% went to Bush or stayed home. That 2% in any close state and Gore would have been over the top. In Florida for example If Gore got 60000of the 90000 or so that Nader got and the rest went to Bush, Gore would have won Florida and all the voting shenanigans in the world wouln't have made a difference. 2% of the national popular vote would have increased Gores popular vote victory margin from 1/2 million to closer to 2 million. Why do you think the Kerry camp practically begged nader to stay out in '04?
History shows that third party candidates always end up being spoilers - for example Perot siphoned votes away from Bush and helped Clinton, who didn't even get 50% of the vote, Anderson took votes from Carter helping Reagan and so on.
That is not to say that a strong and credible third party candidate couldn't win given the right circumstances, but the deck is clearly stacked against them - there would need to be serious electoral reform before a third party could have a real chance. Absent that - the best a third party candidate could do is play the role of spoiler.
Now with congress and presidential popularity at historic lows some could make the case that the time may be ripe for a credible third party run, but sadly, and I even agree with and like Nader on many issues, he is not the guy - the media has done a fine job labeling him as a crackpot, just as they did Perot. He hasn't got a realistic chance of winning - best to throw support behind a third party guy that has a chance if you must - Paul, Bloomberg etc.
From wikipedia
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 6, 2007 6:22:46 GMT -6
Like I said mythology. How many votes lost because Lieberman was his running mate, how many votes lost because he kept keeping Clinton at bay, how many votes lost because of Buchanan, how many votes lost through light rain.
How many Nader votes get Gore get. He was polling 10% in many places nationally, so if 2.4% did Gore in, Gore did 7.5% better than he would have otherwise.
But the real issue is we live in a democracy not a slave state and those votes do not belong to the duopoly. And if Gore or Kerry wanted to do something about those votes, they could have. If either of them came out with serious economic populist proposals there would be no contest.
The Democrats and only the Democrats are to blame for 2000 and 2004. It appears they will follow the same route in 08. The truth of the matter is Gore has thanked Nader for liberating him. They have talked several times this past year, and if Gore's in as an Indie, Nader will stay down.
The question for me, like millions of Americans, is never D or R, but to vote third party or stay home. That is why I see the Nader bashing for what it is - voter suppression. Its only aim is to suppress the vote in such a way where those that would go third party or push the Dems to the left will stay out of the equation.
BTW, I have never voted for Nader. I would consider this time around if he had a strong economic populist message. But, its less about Nader than the democratic rights of voters to make a choice, and for more choices being available. I absolutely refuse my choice to be which orifice will get screwed.
So, will it be Hillary/Obama or Romney/Giuliani for you?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 6, 2007 15:15:55 GMT -6
If either of them came out with serious economic populist proposals there would be no contest. [/url] I think there is some truth to this statement. However, another problem in Kerry's campaign was that many people weren't truly following his message. He made a huge point about how outsourcing was hurting our economy, and exactly what he proposed to do about it. Though Kerry had fairly pro-free trade voting record, it appeared in 2004 that he had "changed his course" on this issue. Kerry favored raising the minimum wage. Kerry had become far more populist as of 2004 than most voters were aware of. Though I never liked Kerry's (or Bush's open borders policies), Kerry would have been far better on that issue than Bush. Furthermore, Kerry's positions evidenced far more fiscal responsibility (fiscal "hawkishness"?) than Bush. Though Kerry advocated more government spending than I would have preferred, he definitely understood that new programs had to be paid for, and he proposed methods to pay for them. He actually estimated how much Federal revenue would increase if the tax cuts on the top 2% were rolled back. He had previously supported a balanced budget amendment. He said publicly that if some of his programs couldn't be financed, he would scale them back. Kerry proposed a plan for universal healthcare, which he calculated the cost of. And, again, he stated publicly that he would scale it back if it could not be financed. Kerry was not as much of a populist as I would have liked. But he was much more of a populist than most people realized. I'd rather have Kerry than anyone running at present, save for Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or Ralph Nader. (Too bad we can't get a Byron Dorgan, a Jim Webb, or a Claire McCaskill.) Unfortunately, I think our Presidential choices in 2008 will be even less populist than Kerry.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 6, 2007 15:58:32 GMT -6
LOL proletariat, you obviously havent been paying attention - none of those would be my choices under ANY circumstances. Kucinich, Paul Edwards in that order.
Again - you can rationalize it any way you like - the bottom line is that Nader voters absent the Nader choice would have been more likely to vote Gore than Bush - thanks to Nader we got Bush. Buchanan took votes FROM Bush - helping Gore. actually I probably could have voted for Buchanan if he was on the ballot - he was the most populist choice in 00.
I am all for choice, but one must be pragmatic and vote for someone that can actually win - if you really want to give a third party candidate a real chance you need to work towards electoral college reform or elimination.
Why would Gore thank him - isn't that implying that it was understood that he helped him lose?
The truth of the matter is wrongly or rightly third party candidates are spoilers - they help one candidate at the expense of the other - thats OK if its your candidate being helped as in Perot helping Clinton over Bush I, or Buchanana helping Gore vs BushII. in Naders case he helped Bush - and we all know how that has turned out
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 6, 2007 18:10:46 GMT -6
Do you honestly believe any of them will make it through the primary. This will be a New York / New York / New York general election.
The real issue is what you call spoiling I call Democracy. You say why not push for electoral college reforms. Important reforms like IRV will not happen until both parties feel the pressure. When the Dems or Rep are really scared that's when reform will occur. Why would the Dems do that when they can use the voter suppression card.
Was Bush a spoiler, and Clinton before him. Any winner by definition is a spoiler. Even if I acknowledge Nader served the function as spoiler, that's is his constitutional right in a democracy. What's sad is Dems were too busy deflecting attention on Nader rather than getting their house in order.
If no one is worthy of my vote in the general I'm going to let the free market have a chance. I will sell it to the highest bidder with those farthest away from me politically paying the most.
|
|