roses are red, the economy is blue... whoa whoa whoa, what'd you say? you voted for who?

Sir Cumference the Flatulent: From TFA:
Pollster John Zogby: "Nader's presence in the race can potentially turn a lulu of a race into an absolute tizzy. The messages to Democrats are clear - number one, Nader may win enough support to get into the general election debates.

No they won't. The Commission for Presidential Debates (run jointly by the former heads of the RNC and DNC. was created specifically to block this in the wake of Ross Perot. If by some miracle he gets over the support threshhold, they'll just change the threshhold.

if it were anybody but nader i'd be pissed about that.

i hope that guy dies in a chevelle fire.

States & elections won with 60% or more of the vote:
Barack Obama: 15 States + DC + VI
* Virgin Islands (89.9%)
* Idaho (79%)
* Hawaii (76%)
* Alaska (75%)
* District of Columbia (75%)
* Kansas (74%)
* Washington (68%)
* Nebraska (68%)
* Minnesota (67%)
* Colorado (67%)
* Georgia (67%)
* Illinois (65%)
* Virginia (64%)
* Maryland (62%)
* North Dakota (61%)
* Wyoming (61%)
* Mississippi (61%)

Hillary Clinton: 1 State
* Arkansas (70%)

Stoopid Nader,

Turkeys always vote Thanksgiving Party or Christmas Party.

Yep, I can feel it already: Ralph Nader r[EVOL]ution!

Oh, I'm feelin' it, all right. NADER TROLL THREAD!

-1 for subby

You know there's room for you, too. So sorry you feel so left out.

"Well whichever one the Democrats finally decide to nominate is going to be elected president.


I don't see John McCain beating either one of them."

Meh. I guess he could take Clinton, but he would have to sneak up on Obama and hit him across the head with an iron bar.

DIAF Nader. Jackass nutjob. He just wants federal funding for his campaign. He knows he couldn't get elected, he just wants farking attention and a chance to speak at a few functions or TV shows.

JerkyMeat 2008-03-16 05:50:06 AM
Hillary will win, Obama is just black and represents nothing else, and Nader is the marginalized freak vote.

Still special, I see.

It's odd to watch the Nader hate. The man dedicated his life to improving his country, and adhered to the American ideal that citizens had the right to run for the presidency. I notice Democrats spend very little type addressing his ideas, and plenty of time engaging in character assassination.

Dangleberry Alliance: "Well whichever one the Democrats finally decide to nominate is going to be elected president.


I don't see John McCain beating either one of them."

Meh. I guess he could take Clinton, but he would have to sneak up on Obama and hit him across the head with an iron bar.

Is this before or after he ties Nell to the train tracks, twirls his mustache, and cackles evilly?

I'm waiting for RON PAUL!!!!!11 and Nader to form the Party of Irrelevant Senile Geriatrics.

One F Jef: i hope that guy dies in a chevelle fire.

Well, that would need to be a Corvair fire, for perfect irony

/irony?
//no thanks, I send my shirts to a service

Suicidal Writer: It's odd to watch the Nader hate. The man dedicated his life to improving his country, and adhered to the American ideal that citizens had the right to run for the presidency. I notice Democrats spend very little type addressing his ideas, and plenty of time engaging in character assassination.

He's the electoral equivalent of a threadshiatter. He plays the spoiler and then falls off the map for four years, lather, rinse, repeat. Sure, I understand that the system is broken, but he's not making it any better.

If he really cared about reform, he'd spend the 3 1/2 years he has off at a stretch working on reform instead of writing books no one reads.

Suicidal Writer: It's odd to watch the Nader hate. The man dedicated his life to improving his country, and adhered to the American ideal that citizens had the right to run for the presidency. I notice Democrats spend very little type addressing his ideas, and plenty of time engaging in character assassination.

Because we're utilitarian at heart and Nader's unwinnable campaign would do more harm than good. Nader is in his element as a gadfly, influencing politicians and litigating, not elected office. And because this isn't Little League where everyone gets to play 2 innings and get one at bat: you put out the team that will win. What's more American than that? If it were designed for "anyone" to run for office, then why do you have to be over 35, a natural born citizen and relatively wealthy? Until America adopts a pluralist form of representative government based around coalitions politics will be based upon converging upon the middle or attempting to shift the middle slightly in your direction. Even then PM's are usually appointed as middle ground people within their coalition. It's not character, it's practicality.

I'm waiting for the Paul/Nader Party of Things That Actually Matter But Will Never Really Matter Because of Voter Ignorance and Hey Look At the Puppy.

/Look at the Puppy 08 FTW

Suicidal Writer: It's odd to watch the Nader hate. The man dedicated his life to improving his country, and adhered to the American ideal that citizens had the right to run for the presidency. I notice Democrats spend very little type addressing his ideas, and plenty of time engaging in character assassination.

Exactly what issues is he bringing in this election that differs from Obama or Clinton?

bighasbeen:

Because we're utilitarian at heart and Nader's unwinnable campaign would do more harm than good.

So giving voters another option is doing harm? What's the point of even having elections then if they are to be set up between pre-approved candidates? Perhaps, as I said in another thread, partisan Democrats should ask themselves why are people voting for Nader, and do they believe that the American political process is helped by allowing voters to have options.

Party before country, as usual.

Nader's good works were a long time ago; he has been a pure AW for some time now.

Suicidal Writer: bighasbeen:

Because we're utilitarian at heart and Nader's unwinnable campaign would do more harm than good.

So giving voters another option is doing harm? What's the point of even having elections then if they are to be set up between pre-approved candidates? Perhaps, as I said in another thread, partisan Democrats should ask themselves why are people voting for Nader, and do they believe that the American political process is helped by allowing voters to have options.

Party before country, as usual.

People vote for Nader because it's the cool anti-establishment vote- at least every person I talked to who voted for Nader came off that way. Look at me, I have special cares above all the other people who just don't get it, the sheep. What the hell would Nader accomplish with a congress not made up of anyone from his party? Change the constitution in a way which would allow an executive outside the 2 major parties to do something. America has been dominated by 2 parties since the Civil War- every 3rd party falls by the wayside because of the winner take all method of elections as well as the electoral college. You need a party machine behind if you want to win a high office in the American system: it's just set up that way.

I've just learned you accomplish more from within than standing outside squawking about how you did something important with car safety 40 years ago. I'm not saying he should be banned from running, but if HE really wanted to help our country he would do something more than just beg for attention.

I'm still not over Florida in 2000. Unless you can say that all those people in Florida who voted for Nader would not have voted at all, or would not have voted for Gore otherwise, it's hard not to see him as a reason, one of many including Gore's own faults, that we ended up with President Foghorn Leghorn. And was THAT good for our country?

You can be mad at Nader all you want, but any success he might have is just a symptom of a deeper problem that has plagued the Democrats for decades: their gross incompetency when it comes to uniting the party, the base and their voters. The Republicans are much smarter about that. Look at how efficiently they silenced Ron Paul, who's arguably the right's version of Nader.

I suspect that any vote for Nader is not a vote for Nader per se, but a vote against the Democrat leadership who have onced again failed to provide a clear path for their voters.

Nader is a miserable old piece of shiat who has turned on every friend he's had. He just likes implied importance of being able to ruin a country's future.

hattrick999: Hillary Clinton: 1 State
* Arkansas (70%)

Awww.... now I'm ashamed :(

Hetfield: You can be mad at Nader all you want, but any success he might have is just a symptom of a deeper problem that has plagued the Democrats for decades: their gross incompetency when it comes to uniting the party, the base and their voters. The Republicans are much smarter about that. Look at how efficiently they silenced Ron Paul, who's arguably the right's version of Nader.

I suspect that any vote for Nader is not a vote for Nader per se, but a vote against the Democrat leadership who have onced again failed to provide a clear path for their voters.

I will... but you're correct. If there were a practical alternative to being a Democrat which aligned with my views, that's where I'd be. But until then, lesser of two evils.

Last election I recall Bill Maher literally getting down on his knees and begging Nader not to run. What's with this guy? I'm beginning to think he's some kind of a ringer for the Republicans.

Relatively Obscure: Hetfield: The Republicans are much smarter about that. Look at how efficiently they silenced Ron Paul, who's arguably the right's version of Nader.

How Ron Paul ran for the Presidency is absolutely nothing like what Nader does. This comparison doesn't really wash.

If anything, Paul is the Republican Party's Kucinich.

Nuh-uh! Kucinich's wife is waaaaay hotter!!11

Sir Cumference the Flatulent: bighasbeen: But until then, lesser of two evils.

It's still evil.

Are you suggesting voting from the rooftops?

Relatively Obscure: How Ron Paul ran for the Presidency is absolutely nothing like what Nader does. This comparison doesn't really wash.

I chose Ron Paul because of all the outlaw candidates of both parties, he seemed to have gained the most momentum and any success he might have had would have been a threat to the Republican establishment, just like Nader's candidacy is a threat to the Democrat establishment. The small following that Ron Paul gathered was obviously big enough to make the media wonder if and people hope that he'd run as an independent after not getting the nomination.

Suicidal Writer: It's odd to watch the Nader hate. The man dedicated his life to improving his country, and adhered to the American ideal that citizens had the right to run for the presidency. I notice Democrats spend very little type addressing his ideas, and plenty of time engaging in character assassination.

if he was stealing votes from the Republicans who had lost elections because of him I'd bet you'd feel a lot differently.

I'm voting for Nader this time around again. I voted for him in 2000 and 2004.

2000 happened because Bush's cronies held high cabinet positions in Florida and Bush's friends go all the way up into the Supreme Court. That's not Nader's fault and anyone who claims it is is a hack.

Nothing will change regardless of who wins, even Nader. I just think he's most deserving of the job. He works 15-hour days now fighting for consumer rights and against injustice. He's been doing this for decades, and he's older than McCain. He's one of the few people who has fought a huge corporation like GM and won, both for the automobile driving public, and for his own personal ordeal with them trying to smear him.

Sir Cumference the Flatulent: bighasbeen: But until then, lesser of two evils.

It's still evil.

Then lets just bury our heads in the sand and wait for the world to come to its senses, maybe we'll wake up in Utopia. There's taking $5 from the collection plate in church evil and kiddie raping evil. Rather than view them equally I'll just go for one with a caveat. Hypocrisy, thy name is America. Have cake, eat it too, etc.

Hobodeluxe:
if he was stealing votes from the Republicans who had lost elections because of him I'd bet you'd feel a lot differently.

How can something that isn't owned be stolen? So not voting for a Democrat is somehow theft?

I'll toss you a bone and take it as you meaning "taking votes," even then my response would be the same. Democrats do not own voters. They are not entitled to them. The line of reasoning would be easier to take seriously if Democrats come out and say voting for a Republican is "stealing" votes away from Democrats.

I support the liberty of citizens regardless of their politics. I am not a partisan hack. If people want to vote Nader, they deserve that right. If people want to vote Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Green, Socialist, etc, they deserve that right.

Nader is at 6% and climbing in the polls as people realize that Obama isn't perfect and Hillary is unelectable

IMO that is the one of the core problems with politics. People expect candidates to be inhumanly perfect.

OFC politicians are human and can never expect to meet people's expectations. So they obsfucate and blur the real issues to compete with each other.

For any cadidate to show his true qualities is a politically fatal mistake.

/drunk

bighasbeen:


I'm still not over Florida in 2000.


Every time I hear Democrats bring this up, I ask them about 2004, an election in which Nader received far fewer votes than in 2000, and Democrats still lost, at which point they will invoke 9/11 faster the Giuliani. There can only be one winner in an election. If Democrats want more votes then they need to field better candidates or do what they did in last century and adopt a different platform. When they adopted the Socialist party plank, or a segment of it, voters had no reason to vote Socialist. Norman Thomas and other Socialists/Communists quit putting up a serious fight around 1970 because the parties adopted their plank(s).

One F Jef: i hope that guy dies in a chevelle fire.

Chevelle fire? Don't you mean Corvair?

He will get less than .37% vote (what he got last time) this time around. Any Nader trolls wish to wager a bet on that?

People tend to think Nader steals these votes that would otherwise go to the democratic candidate, but the kind of people who vote for Nader are probably types who wouldn't have voted for the democratic candidate anyway. If it isn't him, it's some other "fringe" candidate they're voting for.

justoneznot: People tend to think Nader steals these votes that would otherwise go to the democratic candidate, but the kind of people who vote for Nader are probably types who wouldn't have voted for the democratic candidate anyway.

It depends. Run a thought experiment: if Nader had a (D) after his name would many voters still vote for him? It's a strong indictment of our political system that Nader is still Nader, but would get more support simply for playing on the right team.

I'd say that much of his support comes from principled progressives who don't want to support poor policy. Clinton had a hand in getting us into Iraq, so I think an increase in support amongst principled progressives for Nader is on the way. It will be offset by the siege mentality, as always, but at least they can show that they don't cause the problems.

If Obama is the nominee. Nader would be lucky to get 1 percent.

Occham's Idiot Brother: If he really cared about reform, he'd spend the 3 1/2 years he has off at a stretch working on reform instead of writing books no one reads.

Cuz you know, nothing in life is as divine and fulfilling as (simper) therving in the government (simper) (simper simper) and political acthion!

Dear Democrats,

Nader's votes are not yours. Stop pretending they are. If your candidates are so pathetic that voters prefer to vote for Nader, who has no chance, then you never really had their vote to begin with.

Sincerely,
Logic

CodeGod: Occham's Idiot Brother: If he really cared about reform, he'd spend the 3 1/2 years he has off at a stretch working on reform instead of writing books no one reads.

Cuz you know, nothing in life is as divine and fulfilling as (simper) therving in the government (simper) (simper simper) and political acthion!

You okay there?