Why on earth would anyone vote for Nader NOW???

[IrateCitizen]

First off, if you're interested in just posting a pithy comment here in order to stir up trouble, please stop before you start. The question I'm asking here, I believe, is a fairly legitimate one.

Ralph Nader is running as an independent, without any party affiliation. That was decided at the recent Green Party convention, in which David Cobb received their nomination for President.

Therefore, for those interested in establishing a viable third party in the US, voting for Nader will NOT do anything toward accomplishing those ends. Only a vote for David Cobb will.

Furthermore, since Cobb has vowed to NOT campaign in swing states, and to actually urge his supporters in those states to vote for Kerry, are any disaffected liberals/progressives/leftists who would normally be Green supporters, who live in those swing states, going to follow Cobb's advice and pull the lever for Kerry?

On the flip side, for those who have traditionally been opposed to Green "spoilers" in the elections, would it not be acceptable for those who reside in states that are solidly red or blue immediately prior to the election (i.e. NY, CA, TX, ID, WY, etc.) to vote for their Green Party candidate if they so desire, since it will not affect the election itself but might help them in their goal toward building a viable third party?

I'm looking for some form of agreement on this. I realize that there are some on both sides of this argument who will NEVER agree -- but I don't think what I've proposed here is unreasonable.

Any thoughts?

[porphyrian]

1. They Keep Seeing Nader Threads On DU? - n/t

[IrateCitizen]

2. Read the post, dummy. The title was to grab attention. (nt)

[porphyrian]

6. Sorry, my inner smartass has a hair trigger. - n/t

[Kahuna]

3. Kinda throws his arguments last time of building a third party and..

getting matching funds out the window this time. What a liar and a phony.

[rainy]

4. I'm voting for Cobb

He is awesome. I live in VA and will not be throwing away my vote.

[Sparkly]

5. You're in VA yet you don't think you're throwing away your vote?

Is VA that impossible for Democrats? I thought it was still in reach.

[rainy]

7. If it gets close I will vote for Kerry.

Especially if John Edwards is on the ticket.

[livinginphotographs]

11. Not trying to jump down your throat....

But I think Virginia is in no way a safe state. We have a Democratic governor and Kerry is running a relatively aggressive ad campaign here. I think it's a possibility that VA could go for Kerry, and we'll need every vote we can get.

In 2000, VA was definitely going for Bush, but this time around may see a change.

[Butterflies]

15. Virginia IS in play this election!

I'm in Virginia too, and from what I have been reading the Dems actually have a chance this time. That's why Kerry has been putting money into commercials here. I've been seeing quite a few John Kerry bumper stickers and signs lately, and I'm optimistic.

[Cheswick2.0]

18. Virginia is going to be in play this election

If you care about keeping bush from winning I would urge you to vote for Kerry.

First we get rid of bush and then we make Kerry shape up or ship out.

[Cats Against Frist]

8. You mean like Washington State?

I think this election will be very much unlike any we've had in the last few decades. I think all "assumptions" make for the making the ass out of the you and the me thing.

I'm worried about Washington -- my former home state -- which a lot of people call a battleground state -- but many Greens in Seattle feel that its all locked up for Washington State in the blue category -- which is not necessarily so. Maybe in Puget Sound -- but not a lot of other states.

I think Washington is a good example of a state where a lot of people might think it's safe for the Dems, and too much Green voting could deliver it to Bush.

Even California, I think should not be seen as a lock up. People are pissed off, and pissed off means HIGH voter turnout. And BOTH sides are pissed off, and THEIR side has RELIGION.

My heart says: I hope third parties get good showing in "lock-up" states. My gut (violently programmed to react against the GOP) says: every vote for Kerry is a Mandate against these corpo-fascist whack jobs.

[Kitka]

9. I voted for Nader in 2000 <m>

because I was in a safely blue state. But I doubt I’ll vote for him in 2004. Partly because I supported the Green Party and he is not their candidate, and partly because I’m not sure he really represents my ideals. I don’t know much about Cobb yet, but although I align somewhat more with the Green Party than Democrats, I doubt I’ll vote for him either.

I do not mistakenly argue that Democrats and Republicans are the same, but I have a couple major issues that Kerry stands on the other side than myself on, and I won’t lie – I’d love a candidate closer to my ideals than he is. However, I will most likely compromise and vote Kerry. I do believe that we need to vote strategically because we have to move the country back toward the center with Kerry before those of us who are more progressive can gain strength. I would like to see a change in our structure away from a 2 party system, but as it exists today it is a 2 party system and we’re stuck having to choose between evil (Bush) and people-we-disagree-with-but-we-can-live-with (Kerry).

[wadestock]

10. I'm with you on this....

I think it comes down to this from the ones that I've talked to .....

the old "each side is lying to us" type argument....or "they're all just a bunch of phoney politicians....they're all the same".

Nader has been keen to exploit that mentality. He often speaks to how there is no real difference between the 2 sides.....that's how he basically peppers up his audience.

I have to admit...I love to hear it in a way. But intelligence suddenly stops me and I have to ask the question....why not effect changes from within instead of trying to tear the house down.

If if wasn't for the very important fact that we have our backs against the wall with the war and other things that mandate a democratic victory this fall....I'd be more willing to listen....but this is actually the epitome of bad timing now.

Now he's just a pure spoiler....and I have to wonder what's going on mentally in his head...at such an important time in US history. So what it comes down to is this....it's election time....and here we go again with the Nader "road show".

I think it's time for people to see through this "all government is bad" argument. Keep in mind this essential message is the basic stance of the neocons. The entire "it's your money, you earned it" and "taxes are stealing" is based on the ploy that government is bad and shouldn't have any power.....meanwhile...we just improved on our profit margin compared to yours.

He's really as much out there on planet X as they are.....and possibly motivated by essentially the same principles of power and greed when it comes to his specific decision to run against the party.

Also check this out....

The Associated Press: Nader got GOP help, group charges

A watchdog group said Tuesday it would file a federal complaint
accusing two conservative organizations of illegally helping
Ralph Nader's presidential campaign, possibly with support from
President Bush's reelection campaign.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington planned to
file its complaint today with the Federal Election Commission.
The group said the Oregon Family Council and Citizens for a Sound
Economy violated election laws last week by telephoning people
and urging them to help Nader get on Oregon's ballot in November.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. Good Question, I/C

My answer is that no, even if the belief that a third party is needed is sincere, this is the wrong election, even in a "safe" state (like mine).

I'm all for political diversity, and i think it is a shame that we've only got 2 entrenched political parties. But, i think that this election needs to be overwhelmingly pro-Kerry, for on basic reason.

It needs to blow the Bush camp out of the water to create a "reverse mandate". The most important thing is a runaway that will support a repudiation of the philosophy of the puppet masters behind the idiot.

They need to get stomped and the Bushbots need to be embarrassed that they supported such a loser.

To me, all else are details. The single purpose of this election is to get Bush out and repudiate the agenda.

The Professor

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. Good points, Chris, especially when combined with THIS story

Nader supporters like to be in denial about this one, but here we have the parties admitting they did it:

Nader Got GOP Help, Group Charges

WASHINGTON — A watchdog group said Tuesday it would file a federal complaint accusing two conservative organizations of illegally helping Ralph Nader's presidential campaign, possibly with support from President Bush's reelection campaign.

<snip>

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington planned to file its complaint today with the Federal Election Commission. The group said the Oregon Family Council and Citizens for a Sound Economy violated election laws last week by telephoning people and urging them to help Nader get on Oregon's ballot in November.

Spokesmen for both groups denied wrongdoing.

Both groups acknowledge trying to influence Nader's petition drive Saturday in Oregon in hopes that getting him on the ballot would take votes away from Democrat John F. Kerry and help Bush win the battleground state.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-nader30jun30,1,623233.story?coll=la-politics-pointers

[AntiLempa]

14. I feel personally betrayed.

I feel personally betrayed by Ralph Nader. In 2000 I, along with many other people, donated time and money to what we thought were his efforts in building a movement. The group that I worked with spent countless hours spreading the Green Party message across a conservative university and conservative county. In the end, we helped the Green Party win more than 3% of the vote in the County. This is phenomenal considering that the Libertarian Party is stronger than the Democrats in some areas.

This was the beginning of a movement. And then what?

Nader who was considered the leader of the movement disappeared. He was still writing articles and speaking out on some things, but he was silent as far as building a real left party is concerned.

Fast forward to 2004. . .what the hell is he doing? I have been a staunch defender of Nader since 2000. I still proudly where his 2000 campaign shirt, but I am truly baffled at what he is trying to do. I have read his campaign prop. and attempted to analyze it but I still can't figure it out. I thought that we shared the same goals. . .the same ideas. I was wrong.

I live in Illinois and will proudly write in David Cobb for President.

It's funny that Illinois is completely controlled by the Democrats and we have some of the most restrictive ballot access laws in the country. If they were truly interested in Democracy, the IL Dems could put forth some very progressive electoral measures.

I digress. . .Cobb For President (in IL).

[John_H]

16. Uh...'cause Naderites are idiots? Seriously, take a look at the

Naderites on DU: They never refute the substantive, documented and clearly sourced posts that prove Ralph's borderline nutcase megalomania, lies, and hypocrisy. Instead, they trot out the bumper-sticker-posing-as-thought lines they used in 2000--"Duh....The Dems and Republicans are indis..duh.stinguishable." It really is amazing.

[IrateCitizen]

17. Thanks for ignoring my request for civility...

Since you apparently didn't bother to read my first post, I'll restate the opening paragraph, in hopes you might actually read it this time....
First off, if you're interested in just posting a pithy comment here in order to stir up trouble, please stop before you start. The question I'm asking here, I believe, is a fairly legitimate one.