Master Index of Archived Threads


Ralph Nader

Willets Point Feb 25 2008 04:05 PM

He's running, so he gets a thread. Why I'm Running a transcript from Meet the Press. Has some good explanations of what he hopes to do although I doubt he'll convince any Americans who think that the two-party system is part of the Constitution.

metirish Feb 26 2008 10:55 AM

Good that he's running I think, Bloomberg should get in the race too.

A Boy Named Seo Feb 26 2008 12:11 PM

Sorry, man, Nader's delusional. ]MR. RUSSERT: How would you feel, however, if Ralph Nader's presence on the ballot tilted Florida or Ohio to John McCain and McCain became president, and Barack Obama, the first African-American who had been nominated by the Democratic Party--this is hypothetical--did not become a president and people turned to you and said, "Nader, you've done it again"? MR. NADER: Not a chance. If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form. You think the American people are going to vote for a pro-war John McCain who almost gives an indication that he's the candidate of perpetual war, perpetual intervention overseas? You think they're going to vote for a Republican like McCain, who allies himself with the criminal, recidivistic regime of George Bush and Dick Cheney, the most multipliable impeachable presidency in American history? Many leading members of the bar, including the former head of the American Bar Association, Michael Greco, absolutely dismayed over the violations of the Constitution, our federal laws, the criminal, illegal war in Iraq and the occupation? There's no way. That's why we have to take this opportunity to have a much broader debate on the issues that relate to the American people, as, as, as a fellow in Long Island said recently, M . Sloane, he said, "These parties aren't speaking to me. They're not speaking to my problems, to my family's problems."

Willets Point Feb 26 2008 01:25 PM

You chose that quote as evidence that Nader's delusional. I agree with Nader on that point if nothing else. If the Democrats can't win in November after the 8 years of crap our countries been through then it's their own damn fault.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 26 2008 01:31 PM

I don't see why people are "angry" at Nader for helping tip the Florida electoral votes to Bush in 2000. (Every article I read about Nader mentions that point!) He's an American citizen. He has a right to run for President. I can understand "regretting" that Nader had whatever impact he had, but to be "angry" at him is silly. It's like being angry at Tom Glavine for five years for having once been an Atlanta Brave.

Willets Point Feb 26 2008 01:37 PM

="Benjamin Grimm"]I don't see why people are "angry" at Nader for helping tip the Florida electoral votes to Bush in 2000. (Every article I read about Nader mentions that point!) I personally don't understand why these people chose to be angry at Nader rather than with the Democrats for: * not making a greater challenge over the validity of the election and making accurate recounts (which show that Gore actually won) * collaborating with the Bush administration on the Patriot Act, Iraq War, et al * choosing to nominate Kerry and run a crappy campaign in 2004 * not really accomplishing much of anything since regaining Congress in 2006 None of these things are Nader's fault and it is why many US citizens who are not Republicans (and even some who are) want another choice in the election.

A Boy Named Seo Feb 26 2008 01:39 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 26 2008 03:14 PM

Specifically I meant this when I was calling him delusional. ]You think the American people are going to vote for a pro-war John McCain who almost gives an indication that he's the candidate of perpetual war, perpetual intervention overseas? You think they're going to vote for a Republican like McCain, who allies himself with the criminal, recidivistic regime of George Bush and Dick Cheney, the most multipliable impeachable presidency in American history? Because, yes, a shitload of Americans have, and they most certainly will again. And his landsliding the Republicans statement is kinda silly. If the Dems win, but by the slimmest of margins, should they still wrap up and close down? And if their approach is so crappy that a landslide can't be had, what form should they re-emerge as? Something closer to Nader's? I'm all for voters having more options to choose from and completely respect his right to run, but his stubborn insistence that he had nothing to do with the Bush victory is '04 (edit: '00) is ridiculous, and for him to deny that'd he'd probably only serve to take votes from Barack is about the same. It just is.

Willets Point Feb 26 2008 02:15 PM

Nader did not cost Gore the election. Nader's votes did not belong to Gore or any other candidate. The arrogance of the Democrats that they are owed votes by certain constituencies is part of the reason why so many voters are repulsed by them.

metirish Feb 26 2008 02:27 PM

It's a shame on you Barack for calling Nader delusional this week, I think it's a better system when more candidates run for office, I'm not a big fan of the two party system. Of course elections in Europe are different, not saying better just different. I remember when the Green Party would run in the elections at home, not getting any votes yet now they are part of the Government in Ireland.

Nymr83 Feb 26 2008 02:34 PM

that statement is delusional. Nothing Bush did measures up to lend-lease in terms of unconstitutionality, i dont know maybe nader is dumb enough to criticize that too. as far as entitlement to votes, yes its unfair to say those votes "belong" to your party. what is fair to do is say that Nader is closer to Gore than to Bush in his positions. the people who voted for Nader should have realized that their candidate was hopeless and chosen what was, to them, the lesser of two evils. This is an indictment of the voters who made that illogical choice, not an indictment of Nader who should have run if only to push his views and drop out. metirish- theres something to be said for a multi-party system, but theres also alot to be said against it. look at Italy where a government can't seem to staty in power longer than a couple of years since the end of world war two, or Israel where small parties (in particular the religious right) have influence far greater than their percentage of the parliament because they are the final necessary members of a coalition (and even when the two major secular parties get together to form a government they must avoid offending these parties because they know they'll need them in future governments.)

A Boy Named Seo Feb 26 2008 02:39 PM

Willets Point wrote: Nader did not cost Gore the election. Nader's votes did not belong to Gore or any other candidate. The arrogance of the Democrats that they are owed votes by certain constituencies is part of the reason why so many voters are repulsed by them. Ralph's votes belonged to Ralph and Ralph alone. I'm not contending otherwise. A goodly portion of voters will vote for Nader now because he more closely represents their views than either of the other two candidates. That's good for Ralph and his supporters. A majority of those who will vote for Nader would probably have voted for Obama or Clinton and not McCain had Nader not run. That's good for Nader, his followers, and John McCain, and not good for Obama or Clinton. I think that's all true, and I bet you do, too. Yeah? My thing is that Nader's not going to win. He's not. And his supporters' votes are reduced to being protest votes, and that's cool if peeps want to vote that way, but it doesn't do a thing to slow the "criminal, recidivistic regime of George Bush" or his ally, Mr. McCain, and may just give it a small boost in the end. Ralph's gotta know that deep down.

Willets Point Feb 26 2008 02:52 PM

A Boy Named Seo wrote: A majority of those who will vote for Nader would probably have voted for Obama or Clinton and not McCain had Nader not run. That's good for Nader, his followers, and John McCain, and not good for Obama or Clinton. I think that's all true, and I bet you do, too. I don't believe it's true. I remember seeing the stat in 2000 in survey of Nader voters that something like 24 % would have voted Gore, 17 % would have voted Bush and the rest wouldn't have voted at all. In other words, the vast majority of Nader voters only voted because Nader was running, and statistically had no effect on the other candidates. If people stopped declaring that the Naders, the Kucinichs, the Pauls, the Buchanans, the Deans, et al CANNOT WIN and instead just voted for the candidates they like, well, these types of candidates would win.

A Boy Named Seo Feb 26 2008 03:12 PM

Willets Point wrote: ="A Boy Named Seo"] A majority of those who will vote for Nader would probably have voted for Obama or Clinton and not McCain had Nader not run. That's good for Nader, his followers, and John McCain, and not good for Obama or Clinton. I think that's all true, and I bet you do, too. I don't believe it's true. I remember seeing the stat in 2000 in survey of Nader voters that something like 24 % would have voted Gore, 17 % would have voted Bush and the rest wouldn't have voted at all. In other words, the vast majority of Nader voters only voted because Nader was running, and statistically had no effect on the other candidates. If people stopped declaring that the Naders, the Kucinichs, the Pauls, the Buchanans, the Deans, et al CANNOT WIN and instead just voted for the candidates they like, well, these types of candidates would win. This NYT article remembers a little [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/politics/campaign/24NADE.html?ex=1204174800&en=7950721b73488ee7&ei=5070]differently[/url]. ]Among Nader voters, 45 percent said they would have voted for Mr. Gore, 27 percent said they would have voted for Mr. Bush, and the rest said they would not have voted. I agree with you 1000% that it's fucked to declare third party candidates dead on arrival, but I'm also trying to be realistic about Nader's candidacy. I don't think he'll win and in the end I think he'll end up siphoning votes away from candidates who are ideologically closer to him than W or McCain.

metirish Feb 26 2008 07:32 PM

Nader has already sparked great debate here , and that's a good thing.

Nymr83 Feb 26 2008 08:30 PM

He's sparked (or better "rehashed") debate over his role in the 2000 election. he's sparking debate over what role he may potentially have in helping mccain beat the democrat in 2008, but unless his candidacy causes the real candidates to at least debate the issues he brings to the table where they wrren't already (i think 'corporate greed' was the top of his list last time around) he hasn't accomplished anything.

Mendoza Line Feb 26 2008 08:58 PM

]I don't see why people are "angry" at Nader for helping tip the Florida electoral votes to Bush in 2000. (Every article I read about Nader mentions that point!) "Angry" is a strong word. I mean, I'm not taking it personally that Nader chose to run in 2000. But there was no foreseeable upside to that choice. Sure, it's possible that by participating in the election he caused the candidates to debate some of his key issues. If he had supported Gore's run, or even just refused to participate, Gore likely would have won the 2000 election and possibly the 2004 election. With Gore in the White House, some of Nader's ideas might have been enacted, not just debated. ]I remember seeing the stat in 2000 in survey of Nader voters that something like 24 % would have voted Gore, 17 % would have voted Bush and the rest wouldn't have voted at all. The 2000 Florida vote: Bush 2,911,872 Gore 2,910,942 Nader 97,419 Buchanan 17,472 Bush won by 930 votes. If 24% of Nader's votes had gone to Gore and 17% had gone to Bush, Gore's net gain would have been 7% of 97,419, which is 6,819 votes, which would have been enough to win Florida and the election (and today we'd be listening to a bunch of teed-off Republicans muttering about Pat Buchanan).

Frayed Knot Feb 26 2008 09:06 PM

]I personally don't understand why these people chose to be angry at Nader rather than with the Democrats for: * not making a greater challenge over the validity of the election They took it all the way to the Supreme Court, where else should they have gone? ]and making accurate recounts (which show that Gore actually won) They did? Is my memory faulty or didn't every official recount plus a bunch of unofficial media-driven after-the-fact recounts all still have Bush as the winner?

Nymr83 Feb 26 2008 09:15 PM

who "actually won" is probably going to depend on the party affiliation of who you ask. when the vote is that close, and given the flaws that obviously exist in the voting machines and the inherent subjectivety involved in a manual recount, nobody really knows who won. the only real fix would be a constitutional amendment that did one of two things: a) popular vote chooses the president or b) electoral votes of a state divided up by % of the vote in that state a third fix would be a 100% accurate voting system. goodluck with that. from CNN: ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president. The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN.

Valadius Feb 28 2008 09:57 AM

Nader's at GW today.

Vic Sage Feb 28 2008 11:36 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 28 2008 11:37 AM

*avi*

Vic Sage Feb 28 2008 11:37 AM

Nymr83 wrote: ...what is fair to do is say that Nader is closer to Gore than to Bush in his positions. the people who voted for Nader should have realized that their candidate was hopeless and chosen what was, to them, the lesser of two evils. This is an indictment of the voters who made that illogical choice, not an indictment of Nader who should have run if only to push his views and drop out. since Namor continues to ring this bell, i'll re-post my related point regarding the idea of voting for the lesser of 2 evils (which is really the evil of voting for 1 of 2 lessers): ] No one vote swings a presidential election. Not even in Florida. Not even in Daly's Chicago. Anyone who thinks their one vote is "meaningful" in THAT way, is delusional. so if your one vote doesn't affect an election, what good is it? Its good because its an opportunity to express your own political worldview about who we should be as a people. Because so many waste this opportunity by voting for "the lesser of 2 evils", we therefore continue to be subject to such mediocre options. If people voted their aspirations instead of their fears, we would increase the likelihood of electing people worthy of election, instead of electing someone who is simply less evil. Naive and idealistic? Throwing away my vote? No. Its totally pragmatic. It's those who are so naive as to believe their one single solitary vote will turn an election and so vote for the "lesser of 2 evils" who are truly wasting their votes and damning us to continued downward cycle of mediocre leadership. vote your aspirations and good things will happen. spread the word.

metsmarathon Feb 28 2008 11:46 AM

a two party system isn't necessarily better. its just easier.

Vic Sage Feb 28 2008 12:05 PM

heck, a 1-party system would be easier still! and the trains would certainly run on time...

Nymr83 Feb 28 2008 01:36 PM

]a two party system isn't necessarily better. its just easier it isn't necessaruly worse either. see my comments to metirish re: italy and israel.

KC Feb 28 2008 02:42 PM

Vic: >>>heck, a 1-party system would be easier still! and the trains would certainly run on time...<<< ... or else. Boiled down, you've always been a commie and I applaud your consistency.

AG/DC Feb 29 2008 10:11 AM

I don't want to see Vic boiled down. I think a two-party system is worse, necessarily.