2000 New Hampshire. Bush 48.07 Gore 46.80 RALPH NADER 3.90.=Bush 4 electoral votes.

[graham4anything]

33. The Democratic candidate for President. 100% of the time.

Bernie would NEVER run as a republican

I would follow the Presidential guidelines of Democratic Underground in their SOP
especially around election times. As I am sure everyone here would at that time.

You do know, Charlie Schumer and the Democratic Party fully backed (including much mega money) the senate run of Bernie, don't you?

Bernie, who went to the same school in Brooklyn my wife did, is a good friend of Charlie Schumer.

Question- would YOU vote for Charlie Schumer on a presidential ticket at any time?

Now, if Bernie Sanders was the Democratic nominee, of course I would vote for him.
I like the guy.

However, Bernie, like Dennis, like Elizabeth, like Al, like Angus, when push comes to shove and a 60th is needed in the senate, or a tiebreaker in the hous, Bernie votes WITH President Obama.

When push came to shove, Ralph Nader threw the election to the republicans, and he was too lazy IMHO to run for lower office and win, at which point, for little money, he actually would have had to work, HOWEVER, he might have actually accomplished something, but at which time,
at some point, he would have been the one vote needed yea or nay, which would he have voted for?

Life is too important to play court jester in a presidential election.
(of course Ralph couldn't have known his foolishness would lead to 9-11 and Iraq. After all,
it couldn't be possible Ralph knew that.Fool is the person that doesn't look ten steps ahead, like President Obama does and put together what COULD indeed happen)

I voted in the Presidential primaries twice for Jesse Jackson and twice for Jerry Brown(or was it three times).And once for Al Sharpton.
All in the democratic primaries.
I most certainly did NOT vote for Gary Hart, nor did I want him, and was quite happy when he took himself out of the running. I most certainly did NOT want John Edwards and screamed to no avail to his groupies about what he was.
(And in both instances I was 100% correct.) Thank God I didn't have to pull the lever on election day for either those two had they been the democratic nominee, though I would have had we been so unlucky, and of course, Edwards would have easily LOST in 2008.So happy nobody played his game.


Question-(you don't have to answer of course)
Would you have voted for LBJ in 1968 had he stuck in the race, knowing LBJ could beat Richard Nixon, and knowing what you know now.
LBJ is the dividing point. Between having the best and having the worst.
(not dreaming of better, but actually having the best, and getting the worst).
The public abandonment of LBJ is the key to the last 45 years now.
I for one did NOT abandon him. And I am proud of it.
I sure wish I could have voted in 1972 and 1976 for Bobby Kennedy.
being that that did not happen-
Being that Ted is my favorite, I sure wish he did not run in 1980, and did so in 1984 and 1988.
We could have had 53 years and counting of Democratic presidents.

If NOT for the fracture and division of the party itself, and the stupid protest votes that blew everything.

Question -
will you vote in 2016 for Hillary Rodham Clinton? I for one will avidly do so, something I did not want to do in 2008, and wholeheartedly want now. And it will be a positive vote, not an anti-someone else vote.

Tell the third party people to run for house or senate or governor, or assemblyperson, or mayor.Something they can win. And be part of the system from within.
To produce SOMETHING instead of nothing.

Not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016 will give the world Bush3.
It's as simple as that.
Wishing for better than Hillary if/when she is the one nominated, will give one the worst of the worst if one doesn't vote for her.

BTW, for all you know, had Ralph bowed out in Sept. of 2000, and ran for senator in 2000 somewhere, you never know, had he worked against the Bush's as Senator, maybe Barack Obama would have picked him for VP in 2008. And I would then have voted for him.
But he was too disingenious IMHO to want to actually achieve something.
For all we know, had Senator Nader been in office, Iraq could have been stopped.
But we will never know. That is the legacy of Ralph Nader, though he will in a number of years be completely forgotten about, relegated to the Alf Landon's or Los Del Rios of the world.
Who?

off topic side rant-to let you on a secret you might not know-
In the 60s, I was a big admirer of Mark Rudd and the others. This is NOT the 60s.
This is 2013.
And go to Mark Rudds website and see that he backed Barack Obama and basically said the way to do it is from within, not burning it down from without then having nothing standing.
And doing what was done in the 1960s is NOT applicable to 2013.
It is a whole new mindset, whole new NO-borders instead of borders.
And one forgets, the troops themselves were forgotten about in the midst of the protests of the 1960s. Now, the American troops and their lives are in the thought of people. So it becomes important to try to put the least harm in their way. Now it is voluntary and they made their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of freedom of choice to become part of the military.
And YES there are bad people out there who are looking to harm them.
One cannot do what was done in the 1960s. This is 2013.
And 9-11 indeed DID happen. Back in the 1960s, the continental 48 states in the USA never was attacked from the outside. In 2000 it was, and just about everyone was okay with Afghanastan, and going after OBL.

and Yes, one can like LBJ and Rudd at the same time.
Anyone can have the foreign issues and it would always be the same.
It took LBJ to do the social issues, which at the end of the day are vastly MORE important in the long term wellness of mankind. IMHO.

(edit to add-its time to go and excercise for my wellness, back in a couple of hours).