Does Ralph Nader Control the Election?

I think Nader is a repeat performance of Perot.

Perot tipped the balance in Clinton's favor in 1992 by taking 18% of the popular vote - primarily from Bush Sr. (if half of Perot's voters had voted for Bush he would have won handily) and then took 8.5% of the popular vote - primarily from Dole - in 1996 (even if all those Perot voters had gone for Dole, Clinton would still have won the 1996 election by 115,000 popular votes.)

Nader only pulled 2.7% of the popular vote in 2000 and I'd predict he might pull .5% this time - not enough to make a difference methinks.

Stop it already! This is getting very tiresome.

Every American who is over 18 and not a felon gets a vote. Each American can use that vote however she wants.

It was the 50,456,002 American voters (and 5 Supreme) Court justices) who voted for Bush who are responsible for his victory.

The 2,882,955 of us who voted for Nader didn't control anything.

I only speak for one of these votes, but Nader didn't steal it. Gore lost it by not representing me. These votes never belonged to Gore and the Democrats should stop their whining and work to earn these mostly progressive votes.

I am a liberal, progressive voter. Kerry hasn't done anything to earn my vote.

If Kerry loses this election because he continues the arrogant assumption that he can take the independent left for granted, it is his own loss, not ours.

Whoa there, remember, Kerry is just one man. 50 some million people control the vote. It wouldn't be Kerry's fault.

Whoa youself. It would be Kerry's fault. He is the candidate for crying out loud.

It is Kerry's responsibility to convince some 50 million (or perhaps a bit higher) of us that he is worth our votes. If he does this he will win the election. If he fails to do this it is his own damn fault.

Kerry has not convinced me that it is worth voting for him. Don't blame Nader for that.

The Dem's screwed up in 2000 and lost the election. If they stop trying to blame their problems on someone else, they might have a chance to fix them.

Ok, so then it's not a stretch to blame Nader for what his candidacacy can do.

After all he is the candidate for crying out loud.



I don't. Frankly I don't care about your vote. You are in a state where it won't make a difference and even if it did I'd not care. I expect Bush to win and it's not the end of the world.

I just like to refute some of the foolishness the Nader subject motivates you to post. You get all hyped up and I imagine veins popping out of your head as you launch into the latest diatribe about how recognition of the statistical realities that Nader poses aren't true.

I like to refute the myopic denial of Nader's effect you exhibit.

I have no interest in "blame".

I question your use of the word "blame" for Nader gaining people support.

Nader "deserves" every vote he gets. He will get the votes of people like me who have been disenfranchised by the Democratic party. I appreciate the fact that Nader gives me a chance to vote for someone who represents me rather than accept a mediocre candidate from a party that thinks they can take my vote and my values for granted.

Sure, there are "statistical realities". But it is not Nader who is posing them. Nader is a symptom of the problems of the Democratic party. If the Democratic Nominee represented progressive voters, there would be no Nader.

You will notice there is no third party candidate with the ability to "effect" Bush's chances. Bush takes care of the core of his party.

I have no "myopic denial". The progressive voter is a reality-- that's politics. The Democratic party is the party with the opportunity to gain progressive votes. Nader does make it easier for progressives to vote their conscience rather than accepting "statistical realities".

Incidently, I expect Kerry to win.

The trend is going against Bush, and I can not imagine Iraq is going to cooperate with Bush in the next few months.

I do agree that it is not the end of the world.

Perhaps this is because you like Nader, while I do not.

As to the rest of the mantra, I've heard it before and agree with a lot of it.

Especially the parts about the Democrat drift. They can't get their act together. I agree. The republicans are taking care of business.

But that is not something Nader will fix with his self-serving, narcissistic campaigns. I know you like to think of it as bringing awareness or somesuch. I consider it futile counter-productive narcissistism.

And the vehement denial that Nader's campaign hurts the Democrats is myopic.

This is the old meme.

And you're too intelligent to keep believing it, much less repeating it.

If you want to see the new one, attend a DFA Meetup, or a Kerry in 2004 meeting (try Californians For Kerry) or even a MoveOn get-together.

I have never seen anything like the organization, the motivation, and the concerted efforts to dislodge Bush and the Republicans in my lifetime.

And if you think the GOP has raised some dough, keep in mind that they do so in $2000 increments, while the Dems' average contribution is less than $100 per capita.

Here in H-Town, there are meetings every week to enroll as voter registrars (thus making our activism really active).

The only thing the GOP shows itself to be good at is the vilest, most foul attacks on everyone and everything that stands in opposition to them.

And FUDick Cheney is the poster boy for the lying, thieving, defrauding, cursing bastards the Republicans have devolved into.

Their time is past.

Not that it matters, but what I was trying to get at was, in 2000, the election was so close, Nader, this one dude, with timing, could have basically decided who the President was. Yes, not all the Naderites would have voted for Gore, but it would have only taken a very small % of Nader supporters to switch to Gore, and...Gore wins.

Didn't happen of course. I just found it intriguing that a dude like Nader could have actually sort of been the deciding vote on who was the next president.

..

What this is called is a "King Maker". Rhetoric about democracy aside, it would be hard for anyone to deny that Nader may well play "king maker" and for the person who is the furthest from him.

PDiddie, I am not talking about organization.

I think the Democrats are having an identity crisis.

Nader didn't cost Gore the election, for the umpteenth time.

What cost Gore the election was that the Florida Department of Elections hired Choicepoint/DBT to cross-reference a database of felons against the one of registered voters that was intentionally too broad, thus disenfranchising 50,000 legal African-American voters.

All the rest is epilogue.