Nader to Jump in Presidential Race

Party Identification All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Democrat 39 %86 % 11 % 0 % 2 %
Republican 35 % 8 % 91 % 0 % 1 %
Independent 27 % 45 % 47 % 1 % 6 %

Vote by Ideology All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Liberal 20 % 80 % 13 % 1 % 6 %
Moderate 50 % 52 % 44 % 0 % 2 %
Conservative 29 % 17 % 81 % 0 % 1 %

An error term of 2~3% in the election through a single additional candidate would not cause serious defferences in the result, in most cases. The 2000 election was an exception.

But 2000 is what we're talking about...

It's over, you know.

Yes, I know.

Perhaps you missed this:



That's what I have been responding to.

I have no objection against your statistics. A statistical table is a basis for a discussion.

Here's soz's table, it was giving me a headache. To get this stuff aligned the easiest way is to create in notepad and post as code (because code uses a fixed width font).

Ah, thanks for the tip.

It pushed Nader off to the next line, though. Obviuosly, the percentages at the end refer to Nader.

Polls schmolls - Gore pissed away his own election. Couldn't carry his home state even. Nader may be a convenient scapegoat, but he did not decide that election. It was Gore and the Supreme Court.

It's over, but Florida's result heavily depended on the existence of Nader then.

.


The problem is not Nader.

It's the limited-thinking people who will vote for him.


.

It's the limited-thinking people who DON'T vote for him, really.

Doh, it works on my resolution but I didn't think of 800x600. Computers suck.

BBB
The irony of my thinking about Ralph Nader is that I don't think he would make a good president despite all of his virtues. One of his virtues as a crusader to do the right thing for the American people and the planet is his tenacity and refusal to compromise. This virtue would be misplaced in the presidency because compromise is required to govern effectively. I don't think Nader would be willing to make compromises and, as a result, would be at war with his Congress and get nothing done---unless the Congress was extensively infused with like-minded members---and unlikely event.

When I voted twice for Nader and the Green Party (after making sure Clinton and then Gore would carry California) it was to strengthen the Green Party existence, not that I thought Nader would make the best president. I think Ralph is more effective in doing what he currently does: to put a bur under the butts of the Democrat establishment in support of the policies he favors. That requires a very different talent and job performance from that needed for the presidency.

BBB

BBB
In the 2000 election, it was a mistake not to allow Ralph Nader to participate in the presidential debates, which was something he very much wanted to do. It would have added intellectual depth to the vapid debates that proceeded without him.

I wonder if Nader is invited to participate in the 2004 presidential debates (after all Kuchinich and Sharpton don't have a chance to win the nomination either) that he would be more open to endorsing either Kerry or Edwards?

BBB

One piece of information I'd like to have, but couldn't find, is how many of the Nader voters would have stayed at home if Nader hadn't run. I don't like it that some people vote Green instead of Democratic, but I do like it when people vote Nader instead of staying at home.


I agree. On the other hand, there is no way his voters could not have realized this either. One aspect I find amusing about this bruhaha is the unwritten speech code that the proverbial 'folks' are always right and the politicians are always wrong. Nobody dares to accuse Nader voters of doing something stupid -- you don't insult potential customers -- so Nader has to be the lone villain in this picture. Nader's voters knew exactly what they were doing, so we can only conclude that the Bush presidency was a risk they were taking willingly. I respect their choice, just like I expect them to respect mine.

If I was an American, and if it wasn't for Bush (who is the worst candidate the Republicans have nominated for at least 80 years), I might well vote for the libertarian candidate in 2004. I know he can't win, but I like the opportunity to vote for him. It's a way of signaling to the two big parties that there's motivated voters out there whom they currently aren't reaching. But they could reach them if they adapted their agenda.

I appreciate the option to send such signals because on many issues, bad policies have become bi-partisan projects. For example, there is currently no way within the two-party system to vote against the death penalty, for free trade, against preemptive warfare or for the legalization of drugs. If issues like these are important to you, you have no choice but to vote for third and fourth party candidates -- including, but not limited to, Ralph Nader

I used to be fairly hostile toward Nader, but my opinion is changing at the moment. There's no way I would ever vote for him. But I now think people like Ralph Nader fill important niches in the political marketplace, and I applaud his decision to fill one of them.

I would have voted Democrat in 2000 had I been living in any state other than Texas. As a liberal Texan my votes are buried in any election in which I can vote. Therefore I voted on principal for Nader. As I stated earlier, I will not vote Nader anymore. But I will defend to the death his right to run.

The quality of thinking and comment in this thread are among the best I've ever encountered in any Internet forum.

Frank
This is the most painful subject I have engaged since GW decided to go to war. I wish it could go away.

I feel your pain.

But George ADubyaOL Bush has got to go -- and anything that hurts that effort has to be addressed.

I like the idea of an Independent getting votes in states that will not hurt the Dem's chances this year -- but I suspect that many states that have been Dem runaways in the past -- will be in play this next election.

California and New York are two states where every vote will be needed (because of the Swartzwenegger victory and because of the possibility of Giuliani being on the ticket) -- and in those states, Nader siphons from the Dems almost exclusively.