Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
33. Nader is a completely different issue.
Wed May 13, 2015, 04:54 PM
May 2015

For those of us in the "Fuck Nader" school of thought that you decry, the whole point is that he did NOT run in the primaries. Instead of exercising his right to run in the primaries, he chose instead to exercise his right to run in the general election.

Many DUers believe strongly that his choice was the wrong one, both in light of the information available to him at the time and even more so with the benefit of hindsight, because of its horrific practical consequences. Many other DUers vehemently disagree. At this point, it's unlikely that either side will just shut up.

None of that has much to do with the determination of "qualified" candidates. The fact is that televised debate invitations and other forms of media attention will go to the comparative handful of candidates perceived as being electorally significant. I've heard it asserted that 300 people (presumably most or all of them meeting the Constitutional qualifications you cite) have announced their candidacies. Whatever the exact number is, it's clear that they can't all be given attention equal to that conferred upon the Clinton-Sanders-Cruz-Paul-Rubio types. The weeding out process includes an initial cut even before the first votes are cast.

The reason Nader is irrelevant to that discussion is that the pre-qualification would not have excluded him. Although he's never held elective office, he had national prominence and a significant following within the Democratic Party. If he had chosen to run for the Democratic nomination in 2000, he would have been included in televised debates with Bradley and Gore, and he would have received media attention early in the campaign season. (Later on, who can say, because the weeding-out process also includes dropping candidates who initially made the cut but are doing poorly. There are those, like Kucinich, who are invited to the initial debates but then not invited to later ones. Nader might have met that fate, though my guess is that he would have done well enough to stay in the mix until the end.)

As a Kucinich supporter, I'll be the first to agree that this system isn't perfect. I just don't understand what alternative you're proposing.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

... Agschmid May 2015 #1
The US Constitution, pesky thing nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #2
Sure... Agschmid May 2015 #4
That is what primaries are about nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #5
Determining whether Vermin Supreme is qualified to be President... Agschmid May 2015 #6
I think that you are ignoring the constitution at your peril nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #8
Sure we agree, get the candidates out there but we don't need to hear from everyone. Agschmid May 2015 #11
Alas you never hear from all of them nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #14
I don't think anyone here wants to skip the primary... Agschmid May 2015 #15
I would beg to differ given the posts on this site nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #17
+1000 Angry Dragon May 2015 #9
The US Constitution I know pesky thing nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #10
Yes we both get that. Agschmid May 2015 #12
If you read that, it is due to my poor communication skills nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #16
Just because one is old enough and Angry Dragon May 2015 #19
I am talking of Constitutional requirements nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #20
I think it should be time for ALL politicians Angry Dragon May 2015 #21
Good luck with that one nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #23
There would be tests ...lots of tests Angry Dragon May 2015 #25
Good test takers can still get around. nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #27
No doubt you know precisely what those tests would consist of... LanternWaste May 2015 #30
Yes I do Angry Dragon May 2015 #32
I think it's funny that Hillary supporters force me to find proof that she's not one of us.... NYC_SKP May 2015 #3
What I find curious is that nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #7
Yes and again... Everyone on here seems to agree with you. Agschmid May 2015 #28
I am going from posts I am seeing here nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #31
Link me to a post where it says we should skip the primary entirely... Agschmid May 2015 #37
I do not have to, but it is still damn easy to find them if you open your eyes to them nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #38
Nadin that post absolutely does not advocate for cancelling the primary. Agschmid May 2015 #45
I dislike the sound of this, because it implies someone deciding who is and isn't "qualified". Donald Ian Rankin May 2015 #13
Qulification is clearly in the US Constition nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #18
The problem, as I see it, consists of two sadoldgirl May 2015 #22
A national super Sunday nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #24
Yeah 2 is really strong Johonny May 2015 #26
Yes. Agschmid May 2015 #29
Nader is a completely different issue. Jim Lane May 2015 #33
Whether right or wrong in your view he had a right nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #34
I knew it. I fucking KNEW it. Jim Lane May 2015 #35
The strawman is that it is implied nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #36
You feel comfortable reading in an implication when I expressly disclaimed it? Jim Lane May 2015 #39
I am just telling you how it feels nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #40
OK, then I'll tell you how it feels to me. Jim Lane May 2015 #41
Well naming them is called a call out per the rules. nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #42
So you're unhappy with the election after all of three weeks...with seven months to go. brooklynite May 2015 #43
Look I am in CA...so by the time the primary gets here nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Imagine a Primary Season ...»Reply #33