Explain Nader Voters To Me Please

[arwalden]

Do they actually think that their guy has a chance at winning? (Does Nader even think he can win?)

Are there any who even acknowledge that a Nader vote is just an anti-war protest vote?

Do they think that their "protest-vote" benefits anyone other than Bush?

Do they think that there is "power" in being spoilers?

Do they secretly want things to get worse? (Ostensibly so that when they eventually get better, more folks will be really-really anti-republican?)

I just don't understand Nader supporters. Do you? Please help.

-- Allen

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dammit905]

2. No one does.

Not even Nader voters understand Nader voters. I've gotten into several debates with them, and they always ramble easily-refutable nonsense and just say "Kerry sucks" a lot. Notice the striking similarity to a certain OTHER candidates voters? Give up? They're called Freepers, and we hunt them for food on DU.

[abrock]

3. Nader knows he has no chance of winning, and so do his supporters.

I honestly don't know why anyone would vote for nader in THIS election. Typically, they vote for him out of protest against the lack of a good candidate (like Nader actually is one himself), but in the 2004 election, a vote for Nader is basically a vote for Bush. They must know it, but they don't care.

I don't really know either man.

[JimmyJazz]

12. I swear, I'm not stalking you....

I don't get them either. As I said in my other post to you, I consider myself socialist, but I was glad that the socialist candidate was left off the ballot in Ohio. I know that sounds contradictory, but in this country, it's not. I think a vote for anyone other than Kerry is a vote for Bush.

I really liked Gore at the DNC when he addressed Nader voters by saying, "Now do you see a difference?" In a different time and place, I might not vote for Kerry, but we are in a crisis situation. The poll of other countries where Bush is in single digits ought to be a wake up call to the people in this country - we need a regime change and it will not be made by voting for Nader or Van Auken and Lawrence (I love you guys, but not now).

[cheshire]

4. They can't evenuse chancing politic as usual anymore. Moral righteousness

[blondeatlast]

6. They don't realize a vote for Nader is a vote AGAINST everything

Nader has worked for his entire life.

I've tried to explain it to a couople of them, and it just short-circuits the thought process.

[IdaBriggs]

5. #1 Answer I've been getting indicates...

They hate Wrong Way, but aren't sold on Kerry as "any different." He has a twenty year record in the Senate, and "you can't rise in the party without selling your soul." I'm just throwing up my hands on them until the debates.

[cprise]

7. Answers?

Do they actually think that their guy has a chance at winning? (Does Nader even think he can win?)
No.

Are there any who even acknowledge that a Nader vote is just an anti-war protest vote?
A few may think this. It's mostly about economics.

Do they think that their "protest-vote" benefits anyone other than Bush?
Yes.

Do they think that there is "power" in being spoilers?
Misdirected question. Ask Katherine Harris.

Do they secretly want things to get worse? (Ostensibly so that when they eventually get better, more folks will be really-really anti-republican?)
No there are much better reasons.

I just don't understand Nader supporters. Do you? Please help.
I just may be one.

[LoZoccolo]

8. That's all very lofty.

And condescending.

[LoZoccolo]

10. Notice this post raises more questions than it answers. n/t

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

23. Actually, let me go point by fucking point.

Do they actually think that their guy has a chance at winning? (Does Nader even think he can win?)
No.
OK then what's the point?

Are there any who even acknowledge that a Nader vote is just an anti-war protest vote?
A few may think this. It's mostly about economics.

Yeah but you've chosen to say jack shit about why, hence we are left with the question of just what you are trying to accomplish. Your deliberate enigma is uppity in that it implies we can't understand. Not that we're not willing, as this thread is about trying to figure it out.

Do they think that their "protest-vote" benefits anyone other than Bush?
Yes.

Same deal.

Do they think that there is "power" in being spoilers?
Misdirected question. Ask Katherine Harris.

Implies we're stupid, even though we're pointing out the obvious.

Do they secretly want things to get worse? (Ostensibly so that when they eventually get better, more folks will be really-really anti-republican?)
No there are much better reasons.

Same "won't bother teaching you anything" condescension.

I just don't understand Nader supporters. Do you? Please help.
I just may be one.

Same deal.

[cprise]

44. 'Deleted message'

OK, look all I did was say that my response was an improvement over what the original poster said.

I've alerted the red-baiting and other accusatory replies, so lets see if those will be amputated from the conversation as well.

Clearly I am done with this thread. Have a 'bipartisan' day.

[LoZoccolo]

53. That's not all you said. n/t

[cprise]

57. Oh really?

[LoZoccolo]

58. Really. n/t

[cprise]

61. Guess we'll never know for sure now...

[blondeatlast]

31. So what's your reasoning?

Go ahead, just try to make yourself sound sensible.

[RiffRandell]

9. I know this is really mean

but they need to get to get laid. And that may not still help.

[stylerm]

11. reply

I think the reason behind a Nader vote is to get the candidates to pay attention to other issues. The Nader voter feels that Nadars polices will be eventually adopted by a mainstream candidate in order to get their vote.

Unfortunately, most Nadar voters do not know what Nader stands for. They also tend to not follow the campaign, so when Kerry speaks about the environment or big business they do not hear it, or realize what has actually happened.

[Jeff1965]

13. Nader=Anti Iraq War

A Nader vote is an anti-war vote.

But it is also a waste, he doesn't even represent the Greens anymore. In some states, he is running on the Perot/Reform ticket.

[cprise]

17. No, he got significant support before the 2000 election

remember?

But the war is also a good reason not to support a particular candidate.

[LoZoccolo]

14. The Stalin Strategy.

I ask them, how are they going to get what they want, and the only plan I've ever heard from them is that they want things to get really bad or collapse so they can take over. This is what Stalin encouraged people in Germany to do, to not coalesce with other left-wingers and stay ideologically pure, to not prevent Hitler from getting elected.

[cprise]

American Stalinism goes "you're with me or against me"

A false, black/white dichotomy that increasingly pushes us toward an extreme.

A modern democracy cannot peacably function without a social democractic tradition functioning alongside other forces. The Democrats have instead committed themselves to "3rd way triangulation" a fancy term used to denote that Republicans are held up as the policy-forming leaders, and Democrats are to only offer toned-down versions of that economic ideology. Leadership is ceeded to one party. The arrangement is COMPLETELY Orwellian in the Inner/Outer Party fashion.

[LoZoccolo]

28. I wasn't talking about "Stalinism".

I was talking about Stalin's strategy during the 1933 German election, which is advocated open-face by some Naderites, and that similiarity was not disputed by you in this reply, mind you.

But hey, the communists in Germany eventually got what they wanted after the war, right? Tell the truth!

[cprise]

30. You keep trying to red-bait

This isn't helping Democrats in the eyes of disaffected voters.

The Democrats are idelogically rigid in their devotion to neoliberalism and "triagulation". The Left is offering up strategies for electoral reform that Democrats could have begun pushing at the state level to save their party's ass. But they won't accept, save a few very isolated places that the national party won't even acknowledge.

[LoZoccolo]

33. I'm not red-baiting - my argument doesn't hinge on a tenuous association.

That is what really happened back then, and some people advocate it now, and it was advocated by one of the most brutal dictators ever. All that is part of my argument at face value. I'm not even accusing them of being communists, but of having diminished regard for human life in pursuit of what they want. It's really an argument that doesn't even go into the issue of what ideology they hold, just of strategy.

[cprise]

39. Oh please

Democrats are no angels when it comes to human life.

Just for starters, Kerry voted wrong on both Gulf Wars: against the first one, and for the second one. And saying he was lied to is a poor excuse. In the later case, he condoned "preventative" war against a non-agressor and ignored what most of our tratditonal allies and the UN were saying.

[pengo]

51. No...

He voted to give the president the power to send us to war in the event it became necessary. I doubt he or anyone else, Democrat or Republican, believed the president would lead us to war without ANY proof. You sound like the republicans, confusing the vote to authorize the use of force, with a vote to invade.

[cprise]

60. So the U.N. was wrong

...in opposing war against Iraq "in the event it became necessary"?

Kerry was not voting on granting Bush ability to respond to an attack (Presidents have that ability anyway). He was voting to allow Bush to invade if Saddam still possessed WMD.

'Preventative' war.

[kiahzero]

62. Actually, he didn't even do that.

He authorized troops to stay longer than 60 days if they were sent. That's pretty much all Congress gets to do.

[blondeatlast]

34. So why doesn't your guy run for state office--WHERE HE HAS A SNOWBALL'S

CHANCE???

[cprise]

41. Because Dems were ignoring us at that level

At least since Nader's 2000 run, we are able to get recognition in some places like California, and proportional allocation of electoral votes is at least being discussed.

[blondeatlast]

43. Well, YOU (interesting pronoun use on your part) are getting

lots of OUR attention now!

Nader's a prick. Period.

[pengo]

55. That's counterproductive

you can't expect everyone to share your views. Try listening to why these people won't vote Democratic. Try researching Nader's career. He has been a consumer advocate and fought the powers that be for a long time. Maybe you should try to convince these people that the Democratic party wants their views and not just their votes.

[blondeatlast]

65. Don't assume I don't admire Nader--THAT is counterproductive.

Don't lecture me about Nader, I'm 45 and I probably know more about what he has accomplished than you do.

But this, as you should well know from reading the rules as you entered, is a DEMOCRATIC board. We support the DEM candidate; again, review the rules.

I've listened and listened to Nader supporters. They don't seem to realize that a Bush win is the worst thing that can happen to Nader's FINE works.

I'm through with them, and the Admins pretty much are too.

Welcome ot DU, btw. :toast:

[havocmom]

16. Think they vote ideology over practicality

OR they like feeling depressed about being shut out over and over again. :shrug:

In my advancing years, I see that pragmatic is a bit better than being completely unyielding in politics. In politics the fact is that you win some and lose some on issues and what you are trying to achieve. No body is gonna get it ALL their way ALL the time. Compromise is always gonna be necessary in human dealings. To not accept that is to assure failure in all ones goals.

There are some folks that just won't budge on any counts to gain on some counts. They haven't accepted that they can't change the system while being constantly outside of the system.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. I just see voting for Nader as far too dangerous, and I would think...

That almost anybody liberal enough to support Nader's cause would see the same danger. Whether or not you like Kerry, the stakes are simply too high this time around. A second Bush term will be worse than anything we've seen in American history. Worse than Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I combined.

[UTUSN]

20. *I* Can't 'spain This

what do you want me to say? (Love ya)

[UTUSN]

21. Wait a Minute------------There Are NO Nader Whatevers

[NightTrain]

22. I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000.

However, I fully intend to vote for John Kerry in 2004. There's way too much at stake in this election to use my vote as a protest against our woefully inadequate two-party system.

As to why others plan to vote for Nader again this year, who the fuck knows?

[UTUSN]

25. You DID?????

I don't know what to say.

[NightTrain]

42. Yes, I did. And I've never regretted it.

You know what cemented my decision not to vote for Gore? When he chose the vile, horrendous Joseph Lieberman as his running mate. Being from Connecticut, I despised Lieberman long before most of you did. I figured, if Gore was going to slap us progressives in the face by picking such a toxic VP, then Al Gore could go fuck himself!

Further gas for the fire: In the spring of 2000, Gore visited my workplace. I was already so digsusted with the man, I went in late that day so I wouldn't have to meet him and risk saying something embarrassing in front of the people who signed my paychecks.

By the way, Gore won Connecticut by a considerable margin, so I don't want to hear any whining about how I *really* voted for Bush.

[RiffRandell]

27. Gee, thanks, but I really lost alot of respect for you admitting this.

Gore was sooo fucking bad!!!!!!!! Even though you live in CT! Better prop that beret up again and play your soul tunes!

[NightTrain]

40. And just who the hell are you?

And why should I give a flying fuck about your know-nothing opinion of me?

[cprise]

46. Because he knows your vote belongs to his candidate. n/t

[NightTrain]

52. If his candidate is Kerry, then my vote *will* go to his candidate!

What more does that person want? For me to invent a time machine so I can go back four years and tell my 2000-era self about what's going to happen in Florida?

For the record:

I would have had no reason to support Ralph Nader if Bill Clinton had simply done the fucking job that we who voted for him in 1992 thought he was going to do! Instead, he kissed corporate and neocon ass and made the party so goddamned conservative, any Democrat whose politics were even slightly to the left of moderate no longer felt that they had a place in it. That's why I registered as a Green and voted accordingly, first in 1996 and again in 2000.

Not that I give a damn what the Democrats-can-do-no-wrong types think of my voting record, but just today I sent the DNC a check for $100. And on the memo line I wrote, KERRY LANDSLIDE!!!

So, what do you want to do? Jump down my throat for what I did four years ago? Or work with me to elect John Kerry and send Dubya's ass back to Texas? The choice is yours.

[jonnyblitz]

24. there is never any point in explaining to DEMS about Nader.

they already have a preformed opinion. It is clear to me why people vote for him. I personally never would but I understand why others do.

[blondeatlast]

35. Then help us out if it's "clear" to you. We obviously don't get it.

I know you love the contrarian role, but just this once can you throw us a bone?

Edit: um, excuse me, but "THEY?"

You DID notice the name of this board on your way in, didn't you?

[fujiyama]

26. It's about arrogance

They feel they're better than most people for voting for the "other" candidate. They're not "playing in the system" but at the same time they feel good because they are voting. To them practical and pragmatic change means little if anything.

They know he can't win.

Some aren't very informed about the issues. Some have fallen for the "flip flop" lies.

I've come to the conclusion that many of these people wouldn't vote for Kerry, whether or not Nader is on the ballot.

[LisaL]

29. I think so too. They will not vote for Kerry, at least some of them.

I think Nader should just be ignored right now.
Even if he doesn't get on the ballot, they can always write him in.

[AntiFascist]

32. It's like anti-globalization protestors at the Democratic convention

the more they can piss off Democrats and get them to focus on the issues, the more they feel they can steer the party away from the middle where, they perceive, it is starting to merge with the other party. If they can be the sole cause for Democrats to lose the election, then they feel they have won.

[salib]

36. Also, did I not just see several posts about how protest

Is more effective than working within the system, as far as environmental issues are concerned? Now, I do not advocate that logic for this election. However, and this is a big however, if the Democrats hope to get a truly strong liberal vote, I think they need to stop playing lip service to the right. I happen to like Kerry, though I did not at first and came here as part of the Deaniacs. There is SO MUCH that is a compromise for many liberals in this election. Hell, living in this capitalist pyramid scheme of a country is maybe the biggest compromise. However, most of us are choosing to keep struggling on, rather than see the US become the empire it has tried so hard to become.

Someone has to be outside the mainstream in order to get it to move a little. A little left, if you please.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

37. They think Nader truly believes if things get bad enough it will usher in

a new progressive era. That is not a risk I would personally be willing to take when one considers all that is on the line...I actually think those that would help him usher in all this suffering will be some of the first to cringe in fear at what they have created when they do as the RW has made it clear this is war and ground won't be recovered easily unless we recover it via the rule of law...

Granny D sums it up nicely here:

We are the selfish progressives when we think it is all about us. We require the perfect candidate who reflects our views precisely. If we cannot have such a candidate, we may not vote, or we may vote for someone who cannot win, just to show our support for our precious opinions. This grandstanding is more important to us than the lives of all the people who will die and be exploited if a fascist warmonger is elected because of our selfish narcissism.

The old joke is that the left forms its firing squad in a circle. The truth of that is in the selfish progressive's belief that politics is not for the practical advance of the common good, but is a showcase for personal sentiments. Progressive meetings take forever as all of us must fully expound our views on everything. It is such a bore when other people speak, and so wonderfully enlightening when we finally get a few hours to speak ourselves. It is, in other words, a monumentally selfish exercise much of the time.

I hope the Nader candidacy is not to become a meeting ground for such narcissism at the expense of other people's lives.

I am concerned about the future of the Green Party. My friends in the Greens tell me that they are building a party and that they must look to the long view. If they are right, here is the long view: ten to twenty years of party growth, during which the left vote will be split and the right wing will have the institutions of government all to themselves. Another ten to twenty years of equality between the Greens and the Dems, during which the right wing will have another era of unchallenged power. Then ten to twenty years when the Greens outpace the Dems, but the Dems are still a factor and the progressive vote is still split. So, say, thirty to sixty years before they can see some victories. Will there be anything like justice and liberty and nature left to work with by that time?

Do the Greens have a better scenario to meet the real and present danger to the planet? I do: let the progressives take over the Democratic party, whose doors are unlocked and whose halls are unguarded. That can be done in two to four years. If the energies of the Green Party were transferred to a Green Caucus within the Democratic Party, real progress would be possible quickly

It is time for the factions of the left to understand that, unless they have a practical strategy for early victory, they stand in the way of justice, of environmental protection, and of peace if they continue to split the progressive vote. If they can actually win elections in some areas, that is a different matter, of course.

If any fellow progressives are in the game only to hear themselves pontificate and wax eloquent about their wonderful values and their brilliant grasp of the issues--while others starve and die, I ask them to join Toastmasters where they can learn to make shorter, less boring speeches and also do no harm in the world. Politics is not about posturing, but about winning and losing and representing the interests of millions of people. When you take up the sword of politics, you play to win on behalf of your people, not to look pretty in your uniform.

That same narcissism that we of the left are particularly prone to, by the way, may be on display in the convention cities this summer. Millions of television viewers trying to decide whether or not to jump ship from the incumbent will look at the mess on the streets in Boston and New York and say, well, if I have to choose sides, I know I'm not on theirs. The conventions are a time for massive action, but it had better be well organized and designed to convey real information respectfully to the American people, or it will be a selfish and damaging exercise in adult play at the expense of thousands of lives and the environment. I urge those non-delegates going to the conventions to carry thoughtful signs designed not to show only their anger, but the truth. I urge young people to consider the conventions not as an opportunity for mayhem and fun, but for service to their country and their world by using their creativity to open, not close, the hearts of the millions of Americans who will be watching. Let's look good out there. It is not in protesting alone that we find our power, but in creating change in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans. We have the power to do this, because the facts are on our side and because most Americans do care about the air, water, forests and mountains of their world, and most Americans do not side with corruption and exploitation and greed. We can only enlarge our tent by attracting people into it through our earnestness and our ability to admirably represent truth and love.


http://grannyd.com/speech20040529.htm

[Borgnine]

67. A-fucking-men.

That's the best way I've seen it all summed up.

[JohnKleeb]

38. The thing I dont get about Nader is

I saw his speech today in political science, and he was saying poverty and etc were at a all time high yet he said we werent in much trouble as a country. I dont get that man, I really dont. I respected what David Cobb who I saw later had to say but Nader I really dont get, he was contradicting himself.

[pengo]

45. I voted for Nader

I voted for Nader in '96 and I'll tell you why. I am a liberal, have always been a liberal and always will be a liberal. Many liberals including myself have been frustrated with the rightward drift of the Democratic party. Democrats are gunshy of the word liberal and will do anything to avoid the label. Since the days of Reagan, they have been riding the fence trying to woo would-be conservatives. I felt abandoned and ignored. And don't think for a second that some of the corruption you see in the Republican party, isn't happening in the Democratic party. I was very disillusioned with politics in general. It was only after the 2000 election that I came to fully understand the importance of a single vote and the differences between the two parties. The Republican platform is built on slogans and lies. They aren't even true to their own ideals, such as balanced budget and small government. The Democrats at least fight tooth and nail for the social programs I value. I have come to accept that a political party can't be everything I want it to be. But if it is to be ANYTHING I want it to be, I must fight for it. Don't hate the Nader supporters. They are idealists who want to be heard. Republicans won't hear them unless they swear loyalty. One of the things I like about the Democratic party is its pragmatism. It takes time to reconcile practicality with idealism. Nader supporters have yet to learn that sacrificing a little idealism generally is necessary to solve problems . Nader is ultra-liberal and himself is alienated from the party. We need to take it upon ourselves to pull these folks back in.

[sundog]

47. Darth Nader

:puke:

[restorefreedom]

48. I voted for Darth in 2000

but it didn't matter. The state was going to go Gore anyway.

This year, I'm voting Kerry. Even if the state I live in now is a lock, I want to send a message.

Shrub needs to go back to Crawford.

[NightTrain]

54. Could've written that posting myself!

:hi:

[John_H]

49. Nader voters are intellectual giants. So lay off!!!

[zulchzulu]

50. Nader will be in my town this Wednesday. Look for a video

I'm going to try to pie Ralph. We'll see what happens.

[Leilani]

56. It is not a big mystery...

Nader voters are the same as Libertarian voters, Constitutional voters, & remember those Perot Reform voters?

They are fed up with politics as usual..they feel both major parties are corrupt, that they are fat cats, & that their beliefs are not being represented.

It isn t really rocket science...look at how many people do not vote at all..they are not all dumb...they are just turned off.

I read somewhere that if ballots had: NONE OF THE ABOVE, that might win in many races.

[Vulture]

59. I have some empathy...

And I also know Republican Nader voters, if you can imagine that.

I empathize to a certain extent because on some issues both the Democrats and Republicans present something of a false dichotomy, two positions to choose from that are objected to by a significant percentage of the voting public. If you are a one issue voter and that is your issue, neither candidate looks acceptable. The Libertarians attract votes the same way.

The problem is ultimately that the political distribution of the population fits poorly in a simple two party choice, even if those parties sweep up most of the middle ground, you still probably have at least a third of the voting population that is an outlier in that political spectrum. If their issue is addressed very poorly by both candidates or not at all, they are prone to defection because they do not feel represented by either candidate (which is true to in a limited perspective).

I have a more nuanced philosophy and am not a single issue voter, but on some issues I would agree that BOTH Bush and Kerry are fundamentally wrong. Which is fine, since I expect that to happen semi-frequently; there are still enough differentiating issues that matter to me in my political calculus to make a decision that pretty much makes Nader a non-option.

[Heath.Hunnicutt]

63. Mostly they are young and at least they vote. n/t

[foo_bar]

64. I was a teenage Nader voter

It was 1992, the year of the Sister Souljah moment. I found "free tickets" to a Nader speech, like winning a chance to buy Dianetics at the insider rate. Nader didn't come across as a sadist, so I joined the campaign. I was immediately put to work as the guy who helps stencil "Nader 92" on construction paper. It was kindergarten without the paste. Long story short, I don't remember a single thing that happened after that. Don't vote for Nader!

[npincus]

66. nihilistic

[Czolgosz]

68. We should address the Nader voters' concerns

I have been a lifelong Nader supporter, but I voted for Gore (although I was bitterly disappointed by his VP choice) and I will vote for Kerry, I am working for Kerry, and I have contributed beyond my financial comfort level to Kerry. The Nader voters I know fall into 2 categories.

First, there are plenty of protest voters in Texas, NY, and California. Nader voters in non-battleground states are not going to bring the country to its knees. Their decision to vote Nader is neither critical to defeating Bush nor anything that should bother us. They are unhappy with the system and this is how they wish to express that unhappiness and who's to criticize that? 95% of these Nader voters would vote Kerry if they were in a swing state.

Second, and more worthy of our attention, are the Nader voters in swing states. Let me address the debate above question by question:

"Do they actually think that their guy has a chance at winning? (Does Nader even think he can win?)
No."
Clearly this is correct and just as clearly it is beside the point. I live in Texas, and I often vote for candidates who aren't going to win. There is nothing odd about that. That is one feature of our system of government.

"Are there any who even acknowledge that a Nader vote is just an anti-war protest vote?
A few may think this. It's mostly about economics."
Most Nader voters I know in swing states are anti-war, but they are also anti-corporation, anti-fur and anti-animal testing, anti-gun, pro-gay marriage, pro-welfare, etc. They are not seeing Kerry as their advocate. Have I had heart-to-heart talks about how Bush is actively antagonistic to their views while Kerry is in favor of many positions they share and at least not hostile to some of their other views? Yes. Has this concern motivates many Nader voters to vote Kerry? Yes. Has it converted all Nader voters to Kerry voters? No -- see below.

"Do they think that their "protest-vote" benefits anyone other than Bush?
Yes."
Clearly they feel this way -- see below.

"Do they think that there is "power" in being spoilers?
Misdirected question. Ask Katherine Harris."
Am I a spoiler when I vote my conscience for a candidate I believe in? No.

"Do they secretly want things to get worse? (Ostensibly so that when they eventually get better, more folks will be really-really anti-republican?)
No there are much better reasons."
Actually, this is where many Nader voters I know differ with some Nader voters or ex-Nader voters on this board. I know Nader voters who fear things will have to get worse before they get better. Do they want things to get worse? No. Is it a "secret" that they think things will get worse if Bush is reelected? No. They openly profess their belief that if Kerry wins, that's good in the short term, but it will not fix systemic problems with our democracy in the long term, whereas if Bush wins, things will be much worse in the short term, but if we cannot get the voters to the polls to turn this numbskull out of office, then there is something desperately wrong with our democracy and Bush is the man to bring the system down if anyone is because he combines Nixon's dishonesty with Harding's incompetence at a time when small-minded people control the house, senate, supreme court, and most governorships. In short, they understand that a vote for Nader may get Bush elected, they feel like this would be akin to amputating a gangrenous leg -- they don't want to lose the leg but they feel drastic change is necessary to save the body politic.

"I just don't understand Nader supporters. Do you? Please help.
I just may be one."
I think I understand Nader voters in swing states, but I believe this is a small group and I vehemently disagree with them. I think if a third-party is ever to rise in America, it cannot rise on the left of the Democrats or on the right of the Republicans because such third-parties will ultimately result only in electing their polar opposites. Nader voters in swing states have lost hope. Yelling at them will not restore their hope. I think the best way to restore their hope and to get them interested in participating in the election of Kerry is to show them a side of Kerry that hasn't been the focus of the campaign. Show them his environmental record, his courage in working to bring the Vietnam war to close upon returning to the states after service, his support for a fair minimum wage, his belief in internationalism, etc. Show them that Kerry's choice of John Edwards (as contrasted with Gore's choice of DINO Lieberman) is evidence that Kerry wants meaningful change and that he is not merely offering himself as a lesser evil.

I say don't worry about Nader voters in NY and Texas. Try to talk to Nader voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania, but that's not a big group and it will dwindle as Kerry's campaign turns toward domestic issues.