Nimrod's Son
02-24-2008, 10:31 AM
Bad news for Obama, worse news for Hillary.
View Full Version : Nader to run as Independent in 2008 Nimrod's Son 02-24-2008, 10:31 AM Bad news for Obama, worse news for Hillary. Future Boy 02-24-2008, 10:57 AM yay rolmos 02-24-2008, 11:03 AM :apopcorn:. mpp 02-24-2008, 11:20 AM The chance that Hillary Clinton could beat John McCain was nil before this announcement. The chance that Barack Obama could beat John McCain was slight before this announcement. Now, four more years. It's really infuriating on the one hand, and on the other hand it makes me happy. I guess, at bottom, it just really unsettles me because I don't think John McCain is what we need right now. And Nader has pretty much just appointed him as the next president. On Meet the Press, Nader said if the Democrats don't win in a landslide against McCain, they should close up shop. That's his position. The problem is that it ignores that close to 40% of the American electorate would still vote red/blue even if their candidate was revealed as the AntiChrist or the next George W. Bush. Nimrod's Son 02-24-2008, 11:29 AM The chance that Hillary Clinton could beat John McCain was nil before this announcement. The chance that Barack Obama could beat John McCain was slight before this announcement. Now, four more years. It's really infuriating on the one hand, and on the other hand it makes me happy. I guess, at bottom, it just really unsettles me because I don't think John McCain is what we need right now. And Nader has pretty much just appointed him as the next president. On Meet the Press, Nader said if the Democrats don't win in a landslide against McCain, they should close up shop. That's his position. The problem is that it ignores that close to 40% of the American electorate would still vote red/blue even if their candidate was revealed as the AntiChrist or the next George W. Bush. Don't forget Bush got more votes the second time. It's always been the 20% that decides elections. Well, since '88 anyway. Future Boy 02-24-2008, 11:52 AM It's really infuriating on the one hand, and on the other hand it makes me happy. I dont get that, why would it make you happy? I dont really think he'll matter much anymore. Especially if they shut him out of debates. JokeyLoki 02-24-2008, 12:24 PM Excellent Gish08 02-24-2008, 12:36 PM Depends. If he's forced off the ballots in states where it would really dig into Hillary or Obama's votes, it won't matter. This is what happened in 2004. 2000 is an example where Nader contributed significantly to Al Gore's loss. Future Boy 02-24-2008, 12:39 PM I love the guy, but Gore didnt really help himself on that one. Although he shouldve run this time, we wouldnt be having the mess were in now. DAMN YOU GORE! DAMN YOU! Eulogy 02-24-2008, 12:40 PM what exactly is his agenda here? Future Boy 02-24-2008, 12:42 PM Its time for an ego boost. Mayfuck 02-24-2008, 12:52 PM :cool: sleeper 02-24-2008, 02:04 PM The chance that Hillary Clinton could beat John McCain was nil before this announcement. The chance that Barack Obama could beat John McCain was slight before this announcement. Now, four more years. It's really infuriating on the one hand, and on the other hand it makes me happy. I guess, at bottom, it just really unsettles me because I don't think John McCain is what we need right now. And Nader has pretty much just appointed him as the next president. On Meet the Press, Nader said if the Democrats don't win in a landslide against McCain, they should close up shop. That's his position. The problem is that it ignores that close to 40% of the American electorate would still vote red/blue even if their candidate was revealed as the AntiChrist or the next George W. Bush. i think youre really overstating it. it is true that if this election is decided by a margin small enough that a minor figure like nader could tip the balance, then the democrats have bigger problems. all signs suggest that the democrats are going to win big regardless, and this mystique nader has of being this really deadly stalking horse is total bullshit, i think. democrats were just hungry for a scapegoat after the 2000 fiasco or something/ i really dont get why people blame him, somebody has to explain this to me. if were going to blame anyone (i dont think we should at all, to be clear), it should be the hundreds of thousands of people who thought about it and made up their minds to vote for him. hes making himself an option, hes not forcing people to vote for him. its like you guys want him to participate in this giant electoral game where the most honest, principled voters are basically compelled to join in with the democrats. they dont know whats in their best interests, is the subtext, we need to corral them all! seal the exits! jenniferkate 02-24-2008, 02:22 PM <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JIFEceopAUI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JIFEceopAUI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> TuralyonW3 02-24-2008, 04:04 PM God bless Nader for the work he's done in the past, but his ego is huge. I don't think democrats will screw up for a THIRD time. mpp 02-24-2008, 05:33 PM I dont get that, why would it make you happy? . Because I hate the two-party convergence to the middle. mpp 02-24-2008, 05:33 PM Don't forget Bush got more votes the second time. John Kerry? Your 88 comment was right on. jared 02-24-2008, 06:52 PM Don't forget Bush got more votes the second time. because 20 million more people voted Chuck=Zero 02-25-2008, 03:00 AM If Obama were to lose to McCain in November, surely, it wouldn't be because Ralph Nader was on the ballot. hnibos 02-25-2008, 12:57 PM i wonder how many times im going to hear "a vote for nader is a vote for mccain" by november. Caine Walker 02-25-2008, 01:23 PM no one should be shocked that he threw himself into this mess again. he believes that he's giving people another option, while most everyone else will continue to see him as a fucking nuisance. i admit to have the latter perspective, but i can't blame the guy for exercising his rights as someone who wants overhaul the current system. he just doesn't, and never will, have the ammunition for it. Nimrod's Son 02-25-2008, 01:56 PM because 20 million more people voted OK Mr. Smarty Pants, how about the fact that he also got a higher percentage of the popular vote? Nimrod's Son 02-25-2008, 02:00 PM no one should be shocked that he threw himself into this mess again. he believes that he's giving people another option, while most everyone else will continue to see him as a fucking nuisance. i admit to have the latter perspective, but i can't blame the guy for exercising his rights as someone who wants overhaul the current system. he just doesn't, and never will, have the ammunition for it. He doesn't run because he thinks he can win, he runs to push certain issues into the debate. I think what hurt the Democrats more than anything, especially in 2000, is that they attempted to marginalize him rather than see that the things he cares about are issues that a lot of people think are important and essentially they can co-opt his position on things. mpp 02-25-2008, 05:37 PM let's just pray for stupid idiot bloomberg to screw up and run sppunk 02-25-2008, 06:27 PM Nader running as an independent is far less damaging than Nader running as a member of the Green Party. Having no party affiliation severely limits his longevity and power to be a player. Mayfuck 02-25-2008, 07:58 PM nader is the best Nate the Grate 02-25-2008, 08:03 PM Nader isn't going to make a difference you buffoons. He got what, .38% of the vote in 2004? edit: Yes, .38%, down from 2.7% in 2000 when he was actually running with a party. He got .7% of the vote in 1996. His main selling point in 2000 was that both the candidates were the same. I'm pretty sure that after 8 years of Bush, the American public doesn't believe this anymore. There's maybe a tiny contingent of the fringe lunatics that believe this. Which Obama voters are going to go Nader? That's pretty ridiculous. I think he'll get even less than he did in '04. jared 02-26-2008, 03:50 AM OK Mr. Smarty Pants, how about the fact that he also got a higher percentage of the popular vote? Kerry in 04 and Gore in 2000 got more votes than Bush's first try, so I don't get your point. That Gore was better than Kerry? I agree TuralyonW3 02-26-2008, 05:09 AM You know, Nader pretty much is right about everything. I would vote for him if there wasn't a chance of another bush republican in the white house. Nimrod's Son 02-26-2008, 02:40 PM Kerry in 04 and Gore in 2000 got more votes than Bush's first try, so I don't get your point. That Gore was better than Kerry? I agree 2000: Bush 50,455,156 - 47.87% Gore 50,992,335 - 48.38% 2004: Bush - 62,040,610 - 50.73 Kerry - 59,028,444 48.27 So now that we've got that out of the way... what is your argument here? All I said was that Bush picked up support between 2000 and 2004 as evidenced by the fact that he's the only candidate since 1988 to get over 50%of the popular vote. zbeast78 02-26-2008, 03:53 PM You know, Nader pretty much is right about everything. I would vote for him if there wasn't a chance of another bush republican in the white house. too bad Nader is just as big a hypocrite as any other politician, maybe bigger. just look at how he's run his own organizations. he does not practice what he preaches. Nimrod's Son 02-26-2008, 05:40 PM You know, Nader pretty much is right about everything. I would vote for him if there wasn't a chance of another bush republican in the white house. Wait.. McCain is a Bush Republican? You really believe that hype? TicalFSU 02-26-2008, 05:40 PM His main selling point in 2000 was that both the candidates were the same. I'm pretty sure that after 8 years of Bush, the American public doesn't believe this anymore. There's maybe a tiny contingent of the fringe lunatics that believe this. After 2 years of a Democratically controlled Senate and House, I can firmly say there IS NO REAL DIFFERENCE. Whitewashing, Cover-ups, Illegal Wiretapping, Illegal War, and the rape of the US economy in favor of Globalism, all continue despite the Democrats "intentions." I knew the fix was in the moment Nacy Pelosi declared she would not seek impeachment. zbeast78 02-26-2008, 06:07 PM After 2 years of a Democratically controlled Senate and House, I can firmly say there IS NO REAL DIFFERENCE. Whitewashing, Cover-ups, Illegal Wiretapping, Illegal War, and the rape of the US economy in favor of Globalism, all continue despite the Democrats "intentions." I knew the fix was in the moment Nacy Pelosi declared she would not seek impeachment. I'm glad you've finally woke up and realized what the rest of us figured out 15 years ago. It will always be the same; government spying on its citizens (Clintons called it the Rico laws, Bush called it Patriot Act), illegal wars, big business, jobs going overseas, politicians making movies about the rape of the environment while flying around in environment-contaminating private jets, special interests... shall i continue. Barack Obama may end up being completely full of shit, but at least he's saying that we desperately need change and we can't afford another Bush/Clinton clone. He'll get my vote just for that. |