For those who panic about Nader getting on ballots here and there.

[Liberal Veteran]

Get over it. I suppose it might be better if he wasn't, but think about it:

The only people signing the petitions are people who either:
A: Repubs trying to hurt Kerry's chances
B: Would sit out the election if Nader wasn't on the ballot or would write him in.

It's just not that important to get worked up about.

The Repubs campaigning for Nader are going to vote for Bush (not Kerry).

The Dems who won't sign the petition are voting for Kerry (not Nader).

So please try to contain yourselves and don't panic over what is inconsequential.

[freetobegay]

1. Remember the old say remember the Alamo

Heres a new one.

REMEMBER FLORIDA 2000!

[LoZoccolo]

2. I've thought A too, but...

...sometimes they take polls and the results differ a little bit if Nader is given as one of the choices, and I wonder how that phenomenon would pan out with the ballots.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. Think and chew on this and it may help.

It was Democrats bolting last time that got Nader 2.7 percent of the vote in 2000.

How many democrats do you know who have vowed not to make that mistake again?

Or put another way: Nader is polling at 3 to 5 percent in every poll. This time without the Greens behind him and not on the ballot in many states.

Do you honestly think he can match his results from the last election?

I don't.

I'd be surprised if Nader gets even 1 percent.

[LoZoccolo]

8. I don't think he'll match last election...

...and also, someone on here demonstrated that when you compare the polls and the actual results, half of his support evaporates overnight, so I think he'll do much worse than last year. I don't really have a strong opinion on this, but that when-you-put-Nader-as-one-of-the-choices-it-makes-things-different phenomenon is curious on it's face, and I don't have any explanation for it, but in an election that "officially" came down to five-hundred-some votes I can see where people want to take every advantage they can. I guess there's disadvantages to getting him off the ballot in whether or not it's worth the expenditure of energy, and it furthers the "martyrdom" aspect of Nader, too. I guess all this is hard to gauge.

[mzmolly]

4. Bullcrud. The polls do not back up your assertion. The polls show

Nader could and very well might be a spolier in this election. The R's aren't wasting their time/money for nothing.

Read here:

http://www.theunitycampaign.org/news/articlepage_naderbushright_states.php

And here:

http://www.theunitycampaign.org/battleground/

:hi:

[Liberal Veteran]

5. The polls show lots of things....But Nader only got 2.7% in 2000.

If you believe his support has actually grown since 2000, then please, by all means lay out your case with logic for all of us to be astounded.

[mzmolly]

9. How much do you think he needs ? 1% could swing this election ...

My logic is based on actual polls. Yours is apparently based on wishfull thinking?

Pollwatch 04

Continuing Proof that Nader Helps Bush
Ralph Nader continues to assert he’ll help beat George Movies

Bush. Nader’s communications director Kevin Zeese specifically cites a CNN poll in which John Kerry’s lead improves by 1% when Nader is included. What Mr. Zeese fails to mention is that the poll he cited is contradicted by 117 other polls – as is documented in the latest Poll Watch 04 study released August 2, 2004.

The Poll Watch 04 study covers every Bush/Kerry—Bush/Kerry/Nader poll conducted, nationally or in battleground states, from Nader’s announcement of his candidacy through July 26. It is based on data from the authoritative, non-partisan PollingReport.com, and sponsored by The Unity Campaign.

Of 121 polls in the study, 117 contradict Nader’s persistent claim that he’ll take more votes from Republicans than from Democrats. Of these, 93 (polls) show Nader takes more votes from Kerry, while 24 show no impact. 4 polls show Nader taking more votes from Bush, in each case by a percentage far within each poll’s margin of error.

Across all polls in the study, Nader gets an average of 4.3%, with more than 2.5% coming from Senator Kerry, and 0.9% from President Bush. That 1.6% average impact on the Bush/Kerry margin exceeds the winning margin from the 2000 presidential election in six states. Those six states had 59 electoral votes (Florida, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon, and New Hampshire).

The study spreadsheet provides all raw data in the study, including polls results, sponsors, dates and sources.

[Liberal Veteran]

11. The same polls in 2000 had Bush winning the popular vote.

And losing the electoral college.

He lost both really.

You are putting more faith in polls than people.

[mzmolly]

12. Polls measure people's thoughts, and believe me after hearing some

*people* on the left and right, ... my faith in them is zilch.

Some people are stupid, some are selfish, thus people will vote for Nader/Bush.

Nader will hurt Kerry in this election. I knew it in 2000, and I know it today, one can only hope that Kerry has enough of a lead in November, to minimize the effect. But if the election were today, that would not be the case.

[Liberal Veteran]

13. I respectfully disagree.

I just don't see any real Nader support this time around.

[mzmolly]

15. I think it's dangerous to ignore Nader this time, as it was in 2000.

I just hope we can keep his ass off the ballots. :hi:

[Liberal Veteran]

16. I don't think anyone was ignoring him in 2000.

But it has become appalling apparent that Nader's entire platform of which was basically there being no difference between the two major parties has been systematically destroyed in the last 4 years.

Quite sadly, if there are still voting people still think there is no inherent difference after the last 4 years, we aren't going to reach those people anyway.

I am not going to lose sleep over them.

Plus, keep in mind a lot of those votes came from the Green party which has since withdrawn it's support of Nader.

[lunarboy13]

6. I agree...

Although Nader might poll above 2-3% in some battleground states (like Florida), come Nov 2 a lot of people who like Nader will step into the voting booth and pull the lever for Kerry. I think the memory of Florida and the last four years of Bush will sway many Nader supporters in the end.

I should mention here that I voted for Nader in 2000 (Calif) and am a J-Squared guy in '04.

[LisaL]

14. I think Nader is going to get a lot less votes

then he did last time. But if election is close, then even those votes could hurt Kerry. However, if Nader is on the ballot, the only thing that can be done is to campaign against him, I guess.

[mimitabby]

7. who's Nader? n/t

[swag]

10. Ralph Nader: American Fraud

[George_Bonanza]

17. Well said, we shouldn't care about Nader

Excepting the most fanatical Naderites, Democrats and Green voters are strongly allied in 2004. This is evident in Nader's low polling numbers compared to 2000, and the multitude of pro-Kerry Green organizations. From the polls I see, Nader at most pulls about 1% from Kerry, and that support should drop come November. Those who still stand by Nader would be too bull-headed to vote Kerry anyway so screw them.

[Snivi Yllom]

18. Nader is not going to make a difference

If Kerry is losing by 10 points.