Nader is spoling Nevada; thanks a fucken lot.

[LoZoccolo]

Kerry 45%
Bush 46%
Nader 4%
Zogby (7/30)

You can see it here at:
http://www.electoral-vote.com

[cprise]

1. That is "fucking"

FYI

[LoZoccolo]

4. There should be a period at the end of that sentence.

FYI

[GreenInNC]

11. that is "spoiling"

FYI

[arwalden]

46. You should have capitalized "that" and ended the sentence with a peroid.

FYI

:hi:
== Allen

[NewYorkerfromMass]

111. period

(This is getting like the Monty Python "arguement" sketch) :hi:

[rumguy]

2. I don't really think of Nevada as a bastian for the Greens

where do they live? Reno? Vegas?

[cprise]

5. Two words: Yucca Mountain

It is now.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

51. Kerry voted against it...what's Nader got on him? Kerry voted FOR unions

Nader blocked them from HIS businesses....

[w4rma]

67. Maybe Nader's opposition to unions is his draw with these folks (nt)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

70. not in Vegas...it's a union town

[desertalien]

56. There are a lot of ranchers in Nevada

and they use BLM land. I don't know if it's relevant to Nader.
From what I've heard they usually are very conservative. Does anyone know more about the BLM land use issue?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

3. I suspect Nader won't be on the ballot in many states.

Then again if Republicans do in other states what they're doing in Michigan we might see more of Nader. By allowing himself to get on the ballot this way Nader forfeits what little credibility he has left.

[WVhill]

6. Nader or someone working with Nader is collecting signatures.

In WV they collected over 22,000 signature to put Nader on the ballot. The same article mentioned the group doing the same in either Ohio or Pennsylvania.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. So when did Nader say: 'When I grow up I want be a tool"? eom

[AndyTiedye]

7. Nader Will Be On the Ballot in Almost Every State

The Republicans are making sure of that.

It's a classic squeeze play, forcing Kerry to scramble ever further
to the right in search of votes, while Nader eats deeper into our base.

4% for Nader is huge -- far higher than he polled in 2000, and this
will have a devastating impact on our campaign if he continues to
poll this high.

Any Democrats who think Nader isn't a threat are in denial.

[King of New Orleans]

8. 4% isn't higher than he polled in 2000

It's higher than his final vote total, but it's not higher than he polled, his vote dissipated as the election approached. I personally think Nader will ultimately be a very minimal factor in the final vote (1 to 1.5%), but then minimal was enough for Florida.

[LiberalFighter]

103. Could that strategy be used

Keep stressing that Nader is only on a few states and not even enough to get the 270 electoral votes.

[marlakay]

10. I am going there this weekend!

I saw that Nevada was leaning towards Bush and feel even stronger about my swing state trip this weekend. I am going with the sierra club and we are passing out flyers on the Yucca Valley Nuclear waste that Bush okayed after lying about saying he wouldn't until scientists said it was safe and 239 of them say it is NOT. Kerry doesn't support it. I found out the info at my meeting in SF last night.

Also moveon is doing a huge last month voter turnout. I just donated some money to them again to help.

[GreenInNC]

12. I guess

Kerry needs to get out there and earn those votes.

BTW - I do not support Nader, just his right to run.

[Pastiche423]

19. "Kerry needs to get out there and earn those votes"

Do you believe in miracles?

[TeacherCreature]

57. Same old garbage Nader talking points

No one said he doesn't have the right to run. We just think he is an asshole for trying to help bush win again.

[DaveinMD]

77. right to run?

He must be a Republican because he keeps helping them out. He has no regard for the future of our country.

[christo_g]

13. Rather than disrespecting democracy,...

Why not simply encourage vote-swapping?

There are many solid republican western states out there.

Nader supports the practice, and it has not been found illegal there.

The one thing we democrats need to remember is we risk losing our credibility over the way we treat the nader campaign.

Let Republicans be the 'anything goes' party

Nader is working as a smokescreen to our spending 100% of our effort and energy talking about republicans

If Nader 'spoils' Nevada,...it will be because the Democrats didn't effectively take on Bush,....not Nader.

[blm]

20. There ARE no safe states this year.

Swapping votes in REPUBLICAN leaning states???? Who do you think you're kidding?

[christo_g]

22. vote-swapping is legit

I believe I suggested they vote-swap with "solid" republican states.

It's legitimate hardball politics

vote-swapping allows Nader to run and allows us not to have to trash democracy by challenging him

the fact that we democrats don't discuss vote-swapping, instant run-off elections and DC statehood shows are eyes are not on the political ball

[blm]

25. Baloney. There ARE no "solid" red states this year.

And the Republicans know that. Not hard to imagine they'll send operatives to Dem boards just to suggest that Nader voters swap votes in red states. It only helps Bush.

[LoZoccolo]

24. Vote-swapping is ILLEGAL.

And ultimately pointless and unverifiable.

And criticizing Nader's run is not disrespecting democracy, it's practicing it. He and his supporters talking about lending a voice to the forum, well here's mine.

[cavebat2000]

33. Im sorry but..

how can you be that nieve?

[TeacherCreature]

59. It is not naivete, it is strategery

don't trust anyone who says they will swap their vote with you, they won't keep their end of the deal.

[TeacherCreature]

58. nope

Nader is working to get bush back for another four years. He can take his share of the responsibilty.

Vote swapping is for fools. Any democrat who falls for that needs their head examined. Nader and his followers can't be trusted to vote for Kerry in a swap.

[0rganism]

75. What use is "vote swapping" in this election?

In 2000, it almost made sense because the Greens were trying to hit the magic 5% mark to get matching funds. In 2004, Nader is running as an independent. Votes for Nader are good for NOTHING this year except further boosting Nader's immense ego.

[WiseMen]

14. Well Understood that without Nader, Bush would be Electoral Toast --

That's why there are so many Repub groups task to support him.

[christo_g]

15. Conventional Wisdom,..not true

Adding Nader to the polls in many cases does not change the margin between Bush and Kerry at all.

If our party really wanted to win we would push for vote-swapping in battleground states with Nader voters,...rather than humiliating them and looking like republicans when we address them.

Trashing Nader wins no votes we wouldn't get other-wise,...and provides ammo to Republicans who use the way we treat Nader as an example of all that is disingenuous about our party

[dolstein]

17. Eh -- have some facts to back that up?

The exit polls from the 2000 election shows that Nader supporters were twice as likely to vote for Gore and for Bush if Nader wasn't on the ballot.

And contrary to your suggestion, many polls have shown Kerry with a larger lead over Bush in a two person race than a three person race.

Sorry, but sometimes the conventional wisdom is correct.

[ulysses]

18. but aren't there too few of them

to worry about it?

[christo_g]

21. my suggestion

Many polls show no difference in Bush/Kerry margin, whether Nader is in or not.

especially here in PA,....so this PA liberal Democrat NEA member says,....stop trashing Nader,...it's a waste of time, it makes us look bad and as if we are abandoning our democratic principles for 'anything goes' politics

[LoZoccolo]

23. Prove it or shut up.

"Many polls"?

[christo_g]

29. nader vote: 50% Republican

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. July 30-Aug. 1, 2004. N=940 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for registered voters). Fieldwork by TNS. 7/8-11/04: Washington Post Poll.

Asked of Nader supporters and undecideds:
"If Nader does not run or is not on the ballot, for whom would you vote: Bush or Kerry?" If undecided: "Which one are you leaning toward?"
Bush% Kerry% None% Not Voting% No opinion%
Among likely voters:
7/30 - 8/1/04 48 49 1 0 1
7/22-25/04 51 47 1 - 1

[mzmolly]

34. This one poll contradicts SEVERAL others.

http://www.dontvoteralph.net/pollwatch.htm

[TeacherCreature]

60. got link?

I'd like to see those polls.

PS.... saying we and us when you are obviously not us is really transparent.

[WiseMen]

28. Please drop the gimicks and present facts. Dean, Moore, Maher etc

have considered the facts and are trying to get Nader to drop out
for the sake of the country.

The most recent CNN analysis showed that Nader's presence depressed
Kerry more than Bush in at least 7 of the battleground states. Nader's presence never depressed Bush more than Kerry.

Those are the facts. May make no difference in the end. But in a
close election 1 State makes all the difference.

If Nader did not have the support and name recognition to matter,
Republican and right-wing groups would not be financing him and getting him on State ballots.

[LimpingLib]

37. Dean??? And he belongs in that category with Moore and Maher why?

Anyway Moore has alot more credibility than Dean at bringing new voters so Ill adress you comment about his views on Nader.

Moore has decided to focus on THIS election , which is what we always have done in the past (shortsightedness and myopia that cant see beyond a year or 2) and look where it has gotten us. Small income tax cuts covering maybe 10% of a persons nearly $10,000 (in some cases)in health care costs. Reducing housing prices and costs by as much as $1000 (wow!!) was Edwards big pain reliever to hurting familys and kids.

Anyway its fine to urge progressives who plan on voting anyway to vote for Kerry but to shut out all the none voters and disenfranchised is just a bad strategy for future years (both in getting votes for "D" canidates and MOST IMPORTANTLY building a progressive friendly voting climate for ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES that help Americans)and Moore is just plain wrong.

[TeacherCreature]

61. Pissed at Dean for making Nader look like an ass, I see

Dean is going after Nader and urging his followers to vote for Kerry and Dean has a lot of pull with pissed off democrats. That really bugs you doesn't it?

[Bush was AWOL]

44. Do you it's possible

that Republicans polled are voting for Nader to make him think he's recieving enough votes to stay in the race?

[George_Bonanza]

45. Wow, that's diabolically genius

Wouldn't surprise me one bit though. Only if Republicans could put such brainpower into good policies for people instead of electoral fraud and scheming...

[Bush was AWOL]

47. It is very possible, and if it were the case

then Kerry loses his lead.

[GreenArrow]

16. Shoulda picked Wes Clark

.

[featherman]

26. I like NV to go for Kerry by about +2

there are a lot of Reform/Green/Libertarian type voters in NV. The non-major party vote will be split off from both sides. Yucca Mountain anger seals the deal for Kerry (and possibly the EV majority) IF...that is IF... the Kerry campaign has the money, staff, and will to compete there.

[GreenArrow]

32. I believe so too

the Yucca Mt. issue seals the deal. I just think Clark would have solidified Kerry in Nevada, and the rest of the Southwest. I still think Kerry wins here, and in New Mexico, with good shots in Colorado and Arizona.

[MoonRiver]

27. I doubt he'll actually get that percentage of the NV vote.

Nevertheless, it's revolting how desperate and degraded that man has become.
:thumbsdown:

[christo_g]

30. our democratic party

some might say it's our party that looks desperite and degraded in it's wasted efforts concerning Nader

[no name no slogan]

39. SHHH!!!!! DISSENT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!!!

Now go drink the Kool Aid, hold up the proper sign at the proper time, and be a good little operative.

And for Allah's sake don't MENTION peace, national health insurance, ending militarism, ditching corporate "free trade" agreements, or any other position that won't alienate the "soccer moms" and "office park dads" and maybe give non-voters a reason to vote. We need to be as undefined as possible this year, so we can get all the "ABB" vote.

Dissent is fine, but not here, not now. You're either with us or against us.

Now shut up and get in line NOW, dammit.

[LoZoccolo]

40. That's basically what you're saying.

We're dissenting against Nader.

He's not spotless, you know.

[DaveinMD]

73. unbelieveable

I guess you've enjoyed the bush presidency. Support Nader and you'll get four more years.

[no name no slogan]

88. How about addressing WHY Nader has 4%, instead of attacking him

First of all, I have stated, repeatedly, ad infinitum ad nauseum, that I WILL be voting for Kerry this fall. I've voted for Nader twice before, but this year I cannot support him, especially without the support of a party.

But if Democrats are so damned afraid of Nader, why don't they look at his issues?

Over half of all Americans now believe the occupation of Iraq is a mistake, and we need to get out of there as soon as possible. Kerry has hinted at pulling us out, but so far does not have anything even resembling a plan in place.

Over 50% of Democrats AND Republicans favor a government-run national healthcare system. Nader supports this. Neither Kerry nor Bush support this, probably because their donor lists include big insurance companies like AIG and big pharma companies like Pfizer.

Many Americans believe that our "free trade" agreements should protect American workers instead of big corporations. Kerry has made a little noise in this direction, but his stance is still fairly pro-corporate. We all know how Shrub feels about this...

You want to get Nader voters on board? Pay attention to their issues-- ESPECIALLY this year. With the country so polarized, there are very few undecideds in the middle right now-- probably less than 4% according to most polls.

Even if Kerry/Edwards even just paid LIP SERVICE to those issues, they'd get the Naderites on board-- and a whole slew of disaffected voters whom NEITHER party speaks to anymore.

Being "not Bush" this year automatically gets Kerry 45% of the vote. However, that's not enough to win. He still needs at least another 5% to win, at a minimum. If Kerry decided to even go a hair to the left, do you think that any of his current supporters would abandon him for BushCo? That's VERY unlikely this year.

This race is Kerry's to lose, but he needs to give Americans a reason to vote FOR him if he wants to win.

[DaveinMD]

89. what a load of crap

Kerry has a plan for the uninsured and has been critical of Bush on the war for some time. Kerry has been an enivironmental leader for some time and even Chaney blamed him and Edwards for stopping the energy the bill. In the campaign, Kerry has called for fair trade.

The fact of the matter is that everyone knows that Nader only damages his causes by staying in the race. Gore would be President now if not for Nader. But Nader doesn't care. Its about him, not his issues. If he cared about his issues, he would get behind Kerry. If he didn't like the direction of the party, he should have run in the primary like Dean did. By doing so, Dean had a huge influence on the party.

[AntiLempa]

91. Environmenta, Fair Trade, and More

*For the record, I will not be voting for Ralph Nader in 2004

Kerry has a plan for the uninsured and has been critical of Bush on the war for some time. Kerry has been an enivironmental leader for some time and even Chaney blamed him and Edwards for stopping the energy the bill. In the campaign, Kerry has called for fair trade.
Stephen Zunes recently wrote a couple of articles discussing the Democrats, and specifically Kerry's, opposition to the war (available at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0407edwards.html and http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0802-07.htm). Unfortunately it seems opportunitistic. The Common Dreams article points out that the Foreign Policy plank in Kerry's Platform is pretty right wing.

Environmentally, Kerry does have a very good record, but some people are skeptical that mainstream politicians don't go far enough when it comes to the environment. But Kerry does have a great record as far as sitting politicians go.

And for fair trade, what does that mean? I was very active in the fair trade movement for 2 years and even succeeded in bringing fair trade coffee to my alma mater. It irks me to hear people speak about fair trade and NAFTA or the WTO in the same breath. All to often fair trade is used to make a speech sound labor or environmentally friendly without having any substance. I think it's a great start for the Democrats to mention fair trade, but it's time to elaborate on it.

The fact of the matter is that everyone knows that Nader only damages his causes by staying in the race. Gore would be President now if not for Nader. But Nader doesn't care. Its about him, not his issues. If he cared about his issues, he would get behind Kerry. If he didn't like the direction of the party, he should have run in the primary like Dean did. By doing so, Dean had a huge influence on the party.
Gore would also be president if SENATOR LIEBERMAN had stood with the CBC and challenged the Florida shenanigans. In my opinion, the Dems would be much better off had the Democratic Senators signed the CBC's complaint. Instead all of the blame is put on Ralph Nader. Of course this has been discussed over and over. It's all in the Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

And Dean hasn't had a huge influence on the party. If he has, I haven't seen it. I will also be more than happy to admit that I was wrong if proven so.

[DaveinMD]

93. Enjoy

a second Bush presidency because that's what you are really voting for. You might as well send a contribution to the bush campaign. You are a complete Bush enabler. If you can't see the difference between Kerry and Bush, you must be blind.

If Nader wasn't in the race Florida wouldn't have been close enough to steal and Gore would also have won New Hampshire making Florida inconsequential. You can spin it any way you want, but a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

[AntiLempa]

95. Did you read my post?

DaveinMD, did you even read my post? I didn't say there wasn't a difference. I also made it a point to say that I wasn't voting for Nader.

Can you read my post and then respond?

[DaveinMD]

96. sorry

I misread. I thought you said you were voting for Nader.

[DaveinMD]

97. and

Kerry has said that he when negotiating trade agreements he would insist on labor and environmental standards. This is a huge difference from the trade agreements we have seen.

[AntiLempa]

100. One Problem

THe problem with that stance, that I see, is that by he standards set forth by the WTO, labor and environmental regulations are deemed barriers to trade and therefore illegal. What we need to do is repeal NAFTA, the WTO, and all other so called free trade agreements. In place of them, we must push for new institutions that guarantee regulations.

What are your comments on Kerry/Edwards militarist platform?

[DaveinMD]

102. Kerry and the military

Kerry is right that we can't just pull out of Iraq. He is also right that we must do all we can to defend ourselves at home. Not fully funding homeland security and first responders was a major mistake by Bush. Going to Iraq was bad policy in terms of preventing terrorism because we haven't finished the job in Afganistan, where the real war on terror was being fought. Kerry will finish the job there. I see nothing militaristic in Kerry's platform. He says we'll go to war when we have to. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[no name no slogan]

98. Ah yes, "BLAME NADER"

Sorry, but blaming Nader does NOT negate the fact that Florida illegally scrubbed 90,000 voters from its voter rolls, that 300,000 Democrats in FL voted for BUSH in 2000, and that Al Gore ran a piss-poor campaign in 2000.

I don't like Nader running this year, either, but the solution is not to run him down or badmouth is supporters. The solution is to figure out WHY people are supporting him, and see if there's a way to get those supporters to come our way-- no amount of insulting and browbeating will get them on board, no matter what you think.

Kerry has a "plan" for the uninsured that will still leave many millions without healthcare. Kerry has been critical of the Iraq war, but he has not committed to getting the troups out of Iraq or out of the Middle East-- which was one of the major reasons OBL turned against the US after the Gulf War. And while Kerry has called for "fair trade", he still supports NAFTA and the WTO and only wants to make minor changes to our trade agreements, not rewrite them to favor workers over corporations.

These are issues that the party should be CHAMPIONING this year, as they're supported not only by most Democrats, but most Americans as a whole. Unfortunately, in an effort to look "electable", the campaign is instead running away from them, as illustrated by the lackluster platform it approved (with only 200 votes) at the convention.

These positions are not "way out there"-- they're quite mainstream today. Taking a stand on them (in spite of the RW hate-machine) would show prospective voters that Kerry has COURAGE to stand up for what it RIGHT-- not what seems politically expedient at the time.

To many people (particularly Nader voters), it looks like KERRY doesn't care about their issues, so why would they "get behind" him? Kerry supports the Iraq occupation, supports NAFTA, and does not have a plan to cover the healthcare of all Americans-- so why should they support HIM over Shrub? Neither is talking their language. It makes as much sense as somebody backing Bush because they "think" he "might" do a good job with the economy.

BTW, Ralph Nader has never actually BEEN a Democrat, so how could he have run in the primaries? He's never been a Green for that matter, either.

It's amazing the lengths that some Democrats will go to bash Nader, especially when so many of his issues are ones the Democrats have traditionally championed. I suppose it's the same reason the Repubs hated Clinton: they were too similar to each other for comfort.

If you really want Nader's voters, tell them WHY voting for Kerry is better than voting for Nader. Talk up the GOOD things about Kerry, don't slag off Ralph or any of his supporters. Believe it or not, many of them want a GOOD reason to vote for Kerry, not another tirade about how they're "helping re-elect Bush". Dismissing them and their positions will not help us out on November 2.

[DaveinMD]

101. you can discount

Nader's effect all you want, but the fact is without Nader Gore is running for re-election right now. Florida wouldn't have been close enough to steal and New Hampshire would have gone for Gore.

As far as the policy points of your post, Kerry has a plan to greatly expand health care coverage for most Americans. Its a huge step in the right direction. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

On the war, it would be irresponsible to just pull out our troops. Its bad that we started the war, but Kerry is right that we have to finish the job right. He'll do this by building international support to rebuild Iraq the right way.

[TeacherCreature]

62. Our party......... LOL

you're wearing saran wrap.

[pschoeb]

31. Those numbers are wrong

Here are the correct numbers

Nevada ending 7/30 Zogby poll

Kerry 45.4%
Bush 46%
Nader 1.1%

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battleground04-0802print.html

The highest Nader is polling in any of the 16 battleground states, is 2.3%, if 2000 is a guide, he will only recieve half of what he polls at the actual election. Also Nader's numbers have been dropping fast across the board.

[LimpingLib]

35. OMG...OMG..OMG..GASPING FOR AIR (laboring)!!!!!!!!

A 3rd party canidate getting 1%!!!!!!!!!

The worlds going to end!!!!!

Anyway , can somebody please do an average of the total vote between the 2 major partys since our nation began and then tell me whats so big about having a 3rd party canidate on the ballot?

I cant remember an election when there wasnt a 3rd party getting much less than 2%. I think Carte beat Ford 50.1%-48.0% so I guess that would count as under 2%.

Anyway Im not going to get into any argument about the typical bs that Nader "manifested himself out of nowhere" (as if progressives have real representation in 1 of the 2 major partys and Nader just decided to run for his ego) that many keep spewing out , well except new posters (newbys)who seem to be much more understand of Naders canidacy. Infact Ive noticed new posters are 1 of 2 things (50% on each side): eith a Nader hater who want to talk nonestop about how rotten he is , or just plain shocked at all the anti-Nader crap though they dont necessarily plan on voting for him themselves.

Eventualy the new people shocked at all the BS at Nader (its easy to tell they are shocked though they dont express it in strong terms or in a persisent broken record fashion like the Nader bashers)just get used to the culture and either fall in line or dont adress the subject after a while.

I tell you , after Edwards did that "lets all feel the pain for the hungry girl out in Smalltown" with no policys to back it up , Id worry alot more about convincing the American people about OUR TICKET and not worry about Nader's voters:fusterated progressives who dont vote anymore and potential new voters who wont be anything but repulsed at voting. (and trust me Naders voters are never to be thanks to all the underminning of democracy and constantly making nader into an ego issue as opposed to the progressive discussions he meant to bring to the table)

[LoZoccolo]

41. Florida, 2000.

Read up and get back to me.

[LimpingLib]

42. West Virgina 2000 read up.

How in hell we lost West Virginia would be something I would be pondering forever if I didnt know Al Gore made it plainly clear health care wasnt a concern , and no I dont count his Clinton/Edwards tatic of feeling the pain of a hungry old granny in Florida not having cheap medicine as a true health care plan.

Anyway Gore came around much later (like 2 years after the election ended) and not only doesnt bash Bill Bradlys modest $65 billion a year plan as "too expensive" (after Bush ran the defecit up 10 times that amount PER YEAR , he sure better not)but actualy supports single payer. Problem is all the congresscritters in our party that were shaped and elected in the old anti-health care mold were content to vote for the GOPs rotton phoney trojian horse of a prescription drug plan so we still are in bad shape.

O wait your talking elections (forgot about the 2 year myopia , silly me was getting at the root issue:issues)and vote totals from 2000. Anyway the voters in progressive West Virginia rejected Gore and told us to go back to the drawing board and come up with a much better canidate this time. I look forward to seeing their responce to our .. um "responce" .

(Id like to stop there as I have said all that needs to be said but Ill go on )Like I have said 1 trillion times before , more weird crap happens every election cycle that throws the election than some 3rd party canidate. And 3rd partys are always on the ballot whether the media covers them or not. The libertarians and Buchanan got as much as Nader did in Florida and cetainly all 3rd partys combined got more than Nader.Just looking at Nader alone, Nader took so little net from Gore in Florida (perhaps 20,000 votes according to exit polls )that the butterfly ballot actualy took more from Gore in a single county. Plus much more weird stuff happened in Florida like the historic court intervention.

[George_Bonanza]

43. Nader was certainly one factor, but I agree

At the least, he forced Gore to spend resources in otherwise relatively safe states. I agree that Nader was not the sole reason why Gore lost in 2000. Other, perhaps more prominent causes were the flawed EC system and the U.S. Supreme Court. However, Nader undoubtedly had an effect, so much so that prominent liberals like Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Jim Hightower have all abandoned Nader and have tried to convince him to drop out. Stats show that a lot of Nader voters were shocked at the close race, and were they properly aware of the tightness of the race, they would've broken for Gore. In short, these weren't zealous Naderites but normal left-wingers who thought they'd be safe in voting third-party. A lot of them have gone to the Democratic side, at least for 2004. So much so that Nader has to rely on radical right-wing support in states like Oregon and Michigan, instead of old faithfuls like idealistic yuppies and college students.

[DaveinMD]

74. you can

spin this any way you want. The fact is that without a Nader candidacy in 2000, Al Gore would be currently living in the White House. Nader swung at least two states to Bush. These were NH and FL. It was Nader's fault and I will never forgive him.

[AntiLempa]

94. Chomsky supporting Kerry?

Can you show me where Chomsky asked Kerry to drop out?

[George_Bonanza]

107. Chomsky said that a Nader vote in swing state = Bush vote

http://dc.indymedia.org/feature/display/100919/index.php

I never said that Noam supports Kerry, but he certainly doesn't agree with Ralph's claim that he will pull support from Bush more than Kerry.

[TeacherCreature]

63. I am not buying your "our ticket" pose

Nader is running against Kerry. Now he is being treated like the opposition he is. Since you are supporting "our ticket" what is your problem with "our ticket" running against a political opponent?

[lancdem]

48. Thanks for correcting this

That 4 percent refers to margin of error. With most of the undecideds likely going his way, Kerry should be fine here.

[George_Bonanza]

36. Is Nader the yuppie candidate?

I know that his biggest supporters are upper middle class/wealthy whites, but can I have some numbers?

[LimpingLib]

38. That was Dean buts Nader doesnt have any registered support.

For Nader to get any impressive vote numbers , it would require a climate that accepted new ideas and alternative views , which would either be libertarian right views or various progressive views. It would require acceptance of 3rd partys and tons of electoral reform.

Nader failed at making that case himself (the man is short on charisma and gimmicks and long on issues that frankly bore people)and the politicians dont care or are outright opposed.

Edit:also you might be thinking of Edwards supporters during the primary after Dean tanked and Edwards sprung up in Iowa then wowed everybody with his "2 Americas" rhetoric .

[TeacherCreature]

64. Wow, you really have a grudge against Dean

Let me guess, you supported DK, but now you are working to get Nader support.

[Capn Sunshine]

49. Once again I must point out

If we Dems could articulate a better message than Nader they wouldn't have to worry about anyone "stealing " votes.

It's our fault when this happens. Maybe we could work on that.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

52. ROFL..we're getting 46% consistently, he's getting 2-3% and WE should

better articulate ourselves? Sorry..that just shows how OUT OF TOUCH the Naderites are...he is polling just enough to be a spoiler in a close election...he is a tool with a big ego..

If progressives would take Dean's and Kucinich's lead and organize as a block WITHIN a party rather than consistently BASHING it and holding their votes ransom, they'd probably go a lot farther...it HAS happened in the past.

[TeacherCreature]

66. Progressives

I think most progressives are orgainzing within the party, including Captain Sunshine. Some of us are just frustrated that there isn't a better progessive message from Kerry.
However what you are seeing on this board are a lot of Naderites and freepers pretending to be democrats sticking up for Nader's right to run.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

69. The funny thing is many of these people defend Gore and would have

campaigned for him when his message was TEN TIMES less progressive than Kerry's when he was actually in the HOT SEAT and his votes were FAR more conservative than Kerry's when he was in the house and senate.

Sorry to get a bit enflamed about this, but Kerry tailored a message to the few that WILL vote...we can argue about why people don't vote ad nauseum but none of that changes the reality that they don't and whatever their excuse...there's too much at stake to forego a well rounded message that plays to the brainwashed masses in the HOPES that those more liberal will vote...hell...already SO many that would be FAR better served by Dems vote Republican on single issue politics...anyway...I appreciate your response

[Capn Sunshine]

81. I still think that Nader wouldn't be a problem

if we were a tad bit more inclusive in the big tent. Why won't you admit that there are 50% of the electorate not voting in disgust, and articulating a decent , not leftwing wacko, decent, message would bring them out?Their numbers are much much larger than the shrinking swing vote. They don't ask for much. An acknowledgement we share their concern for issues like peace ,help for children of the poor, education and division of resources, is that so much to ask?

I"ll hang up and take your answer offline......

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

84. I think the "not voting in disgust" thing is way overblown

I read Joan Dideon's "Political Fictions" and bought it for a while, but after the last 4 years, anyone using that excuse is brain dead..no?

[Capn Sunshine]

90. I guess you don't get out much

:evilgrin: They are out there, they are disgusted, and we could have them, but it might mean gravitating away from our more right wing views.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

99. I get out lots

Maybe it is the difference in our communities....the people I am seeing don't have any grip on the issues and are more confused than disgusted.

From the Union folks, I get the "they are both corrupt" story which to some degree is correct...I haven't gotten anyone who said, "Gosh I wish they were more liberal."

And despite what some of the more lovely characters on your board say about me, you know I am probably more liberal than the people I am speaking to.

[TeacherCreature]

65. part of the message is that Nader is a tool for the right

But I do agree we need a better message in regards to bush.

[w4rma]

68. I'm going to disagree with you on this, Capn. This is Nader's fault

for wasting progressive resources in this petty, shallow, unproductive, wasting my flipping time, windmill jousting.

[Capn Sunshine]

82. I expect many to disagree

but really, is there ANYTHING about Nader's message that you disagree with?

[DaveinMD]

83. its not about the message

its about him enabling Bush to win for the second time. There would be no President George W. Bush without Nader and he's about to do it again. He has no regard for the future of this country. And he's a huge hypocrite. There is a special place in hell for this traitor.

[Capn Sunshine]

92. OK. If it's NOT about the message

yet his message resonates enough to "steal" votes from Democrats, I have to ask, WHY isn't HIS message part of OUR message, since he's stealing "OUR" votes?

What is it about this that the Party has such a problem accepting?

[DaveinMD]

105. with Nader

we're damned no matter which way we go. We can move to the left to pick up his votes, but that is a risk too. If we do that, we risk losing large numbers of moderate votes. Kerry is attack by Bush as being so liberal, but I guess that doesn't matter to Nader. That's because he's an egomaniac.

[lojasmo]

50. God forbid we should celebrate democracy

and allow it to happen. :crazy:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

53. Yeah it worked so well last time

I wish Nader would get elected to something..at least THEN he would have SOME kind of record in the past 15 years

[George_Bonanza]

54. Political sabotage by ill-motivated Repugs is not exactly democracy

I'm not challenging Nader's right to run, but the extremely perverted way his campaign is practising "democracy".

[lojasmo]

55. All three campaigns are practicing perverted democracy N/T

[George_Bonanza]

76. At least Kerry has the support of genuine well-wishers

[lojasmo]

78. So does Nader, IIRC

[George_Bonanza]

79. Then why does he have to rely on Republicans?

Even someone like David Duke would have SOME popular support. Not comparing Nader to Duke! Just needed an example.

[lojasmo]

87. Oh come on

Kerry isn't relying on independents? Sure he is.

To say that Nader has NO support from genuine well-wishers is disingenuous.

Republicans are helping nader to get on the ballot in some states because it suits their agenda.

Nader is enjoying 1-4% in polling. That's some genuine support.

[George_Bonanza]

104. There's a diff b/w an independent and a cynical Repug

For one thing, the indie has a chance of being swayed. The cynical Repug is simply trying to use Nader like a cheap kleenex to hurt Kerry. They couldn't agree less with Nader's agenda.

Kerry supplements his support with independents, while Nader is wholly dependent on cynical Repugs. I see a big difference. And I wouldn't trust those poll numbers Nader has as they could be Repugs trying to give Nader a false sense of support.

[lojasmo]

110. Your logic is spurious.

You're saying that because the repugs are working to get Mr. Nader on ballots, he has no supporters.

This is a patently false argument. I will be VERY unlikely to vote for nader.

I DO ABSOLUTELY support his right to run.

I would try to convince him not to.

He has many avid supporters, though I believe they're misguided.

[George_Bonanza]

114. If Nader had substantial support, then his loyal followers would put him

On the ballot, would they not? Nader was popular enough in 2000 to get on 44 state ballots without Republican help. Nader has support this year, no doubt, probably in heavily liberal areas like NYC or SF. But if he is not wanted sufficiently in places like Oregon and Arizona, shouldn't he stop pursuing it? I support his right to run, don't mistake that.

[lojasmo]

115. Well yes I agree.

But this thread isn't about republican chicanery. I'ts about Nader "spoiling" the election.

Nader has the right to run, and his supporters have the right to vote for him. This thread is crap dressed up as caviar.

[George_Bonanza]

118. So my logic is not spurious? =)

[lojasmo]

119. Your logic is spurious.

Your innitial premise was that he hadn't any support.

[DaveinMD]

72. you've got to be kidding

Nader is responsible for the mess we've had the last four years and now he's doing it again. If he thinks the Party was too moderate he should have run in the primary. That's how our system works.

[Zynx]

80. Will Nader supporters stop hiding behind "democracy" and start paying....

attention to facts?

[QC]

86. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

I'm convinced that for many of these people politics is all about posturing and cheap emotional gratification, rather than actually doing things to make the world better. It's the only possible explanation.

[DaveinMD]

71. Don't worry

I wouldn't get too riled up just yet. I suspect the Nader vote will disipate as we get closer to the Election. That said, I hate Nader as much as I hate Bush.

[defoliant]

85. This is a job for MoveOn..

Maybe MoveOn can run ads in Nevada showing that Nader's money is coming from hard-core Republicans...

[George_Bonanza]

106. Chomsky: A vote for Nader (in swing states) = vote for bush

http://dc.indymedia.org/feature/display/100919/index.php

Look, I don't hate Nader. I like the Greens, and I like Dave Cobb, and I wish him the best in his grassroots organizations. I think Cobb is a much wiser man than Nader in his desire not to interfere with presidential elections but to focus on smaller, state-based elections to build support. I like this man much more than Nader.

I fully support Nader's run in 2000. People wanted him there and he should've been there. Much more important than Nader, in Florida, were the missing votes and the U.S. Supreme Court who overturned a Florida supreme court ruling. As someone said, Buchanan pulled as many votes from the right as Nader did from the left.

My problem with Nader in 2004 is that his candidacy has absolutely no point. Even if he achieved the mythical 5%, what party would benefit? The Reforms? Yech. Certainly not the Greens who have spurned him. His cause has so little popular support that he has to rely on cynical Repugs who couldn't agree with him less on the issues. These aren't centrist indies who are looking both ways. No, these are cold-hearted Bushites who are using Nader like a vacuum cleaner to do their dirty work against Kerry. And Nader is obliging them.

I'm not exactly too worried about Nader in November. For one thing, his polling could have been inflated by devious Repugs who want him to feel falsely secure in his support. Secondly, his polls will rapidly drop, as in 2000, when crunch time comes. He's polling at half of wha the did in 2000, so his effect will hopefully be extremely miniscule. Also, Kerry is a stronger candidate than Gore, and four years of Bush will energize the Democratic/liberal base to put Kerry over the top in November.

PS Chomsky is planning to vote Nader in 2004 but only because he's in a safe state. But he discourages voting for Nader in swing states. Just wanted to clear any potential confusion.

[mountainvue]

108. Is he on the ballot?

Then don't worry about it.

[LaRoucheYouth4Kerry]

109. WARNING: TOP GOP DONATERS DONATING TO NADER!!

Lyndon LaRouche has exposed Ralph Nader as a 'hired empty suit' by the GOP to ruin the Democratic Campaign of John Kerry. We are exposing Ralph Nader as a loser who is a Neo-Con agent who is being paid by top GOP contributors. This even includes celebrities, and most of the other GOP donators. Let any Ralph supporter know that the GOP is funding his entire campaign in order to make sure htey can win. Don't be fooled.

[LoZoccolo]

112. Not even I think Republicans are funding his "entire" campaign, second...

...aren't you guys running an independant candidate as well?

[LimpingLib]

113. Hey a LaRouche guy!!!! (question)

Do you think Virgina would be a Democratic leaning state to date if the state party hadnt been intolerate toward the LaRouche wing of the party and weakened a wing of their coalition?

Im asking the question based on what I have heard mainstream analysists say.

[George_Bonanza]

116. Nader doesn't seem to be spoiling Michigan

Good news there.

[iaclassic]

117. Did you see him with Michael Moore on Bill Maher show?

On "Real Time" a few days ago... both Michael Moore and Bill Maher got on their knees to beg Nader NOT TO RUN.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

120. Help me out here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2166784