Nader/Green Party thread
 

The idea that Nader hurts democrats is a laughable one indeed.

Nader wrote on his website: ""In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."

Consider the fact that the vote total in Florida was so narrow that it encouraged electoral fraud, something that is common place throughout the history of the United States. It can be seen as Republican revenge for the Democratic Party allegedly stealing the vote in 1960. The Mayor Daly political machine lost ballots, over counted votes for Kennedy and delivered the election to the Democratic Party by reporting an extraordinary margin of victory for Kennedy in Cook County. Texas was also in this, and knowing my state, there is no doubt the Democrat Party at that time wasn't on the level. This kind of thing is not unusual, and in 2000 the Supreme Court took action to choose a president based on the data that had already been counted. The Nader vote-splitting accusations has, and always will be, sour grapes. It is absurd to assume that the votes Nader got in 2000 would have gone to Gore, since this is supposed to be some kind of Democracy (it really isn't). To accuse someone of costing Gore the presidency, when his campaign was poorly run and he could not even win his home state, is the height of foolishness and discussion of this should be terminated. If the Democrat party was really concerned with the Green party costing votes, they should have reached out to try and appeal to these voters after the Convention, they did not since 2% of the vote, or whatever the final tally was for Nader, was not a priority, and to pull at least 1% of that 2.7% Nader got may have cost them more independent centrist votes.

Talking about vote-splitting is the worst kind of bipartisanism. There is no doubt that a serious contender for president, that runs on a third party ticket, can ruin the chance for someone to be elected, re: TR's Bull Moose party vs. Republican Taft and Democrat Wilson (who won). However, to criticize someone that garnered far less votes than should even be mentioned as costing a candidate a close election in one state is the definition of being a crybaby. Roosevelt won states, costing Taft a re-election bid. Contrast that with 2000's results.





There is hardly a significant challenge from someone who garnered 2.7% of the vote. Especially in an election in which Gore still won the popular vote, but lost Florida amid accusations of electoral fraud and the Supreme Court bringing an end to it. If there is someone to blame for the Bush victory in 2000, it would be Kathryn Harris, Jeb Bush, the Republican Party, and the Supreme Court. Nader has very little influence in this matter.

Eh, fuck that guy. You'd think he'd get the point after losing 6 times.

Pretty much. What does the Democratic party think will happen when they vote to authorize Bush to invade Iraq? They are losing voters to independents by being Republican Lite (by the same token Republicans will lose voters by being Democrat Lite). I'd vote for Nader like I have in the past 2 presidential elections.

You guys should check out An Unreasonable Man, a fantastic new documentary about Nader.

For the record, I don't vote green.

I thought an unreasonable man was a book? either way he was on the daily show the other day promoting it lol

I would agree with Troskillicious. and the mismanagement of the elections in Florida under Katherine Harris Jeb Bush's collective watch, which was shot down by
a largely Republican Supreme Court appointed by the Reagan and Bush I administrations.

It's worth noting the discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral vote in the 1912 election... that's awful!

Also there was an interesting conversation between Jon Stewart and Ralph Nadar on this issue recently:
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherl...&is_large=true

It really shows how the system is designed to keep the status quo in power.

I didn't read your post because that would have required me to scroll to the right, and I'm not okay with that.

to the victor go the spoils?

I just watched the trailer for an unreasonable man and it looks terrible. Who is the guy in the blue turtle neck who says 'i think the man should leave the country" and what makes his opinion valid? and it is an opinion, and as such it doesnt make for a very verifiable or acurate documentary but an opinion piece... how bout the woman with a mocking tone as she makes the stupid exagerations "people wrote to him thinking he could solve all their problems. i think he probably got more mail than the beatles"...the whole trailer looks like shit with the semi-creepy music playing....

from 0-47 seconds its anti nader, 48-58 its positive. then that turtle neck fag comes back. like its on the same level as farenhype 911. his quotes look like their taken out of context

nader is the man.

Might makes right. Hoo-ah!

It's kinda strange that you're trashing that idea, considering that just a couple posts ago it appears you were trashing the electoral college system. You're kinda standing on both sides of the fence on this one.

Um. Trashing the electorial system and trashing the idea that might makes right seems to me like standing on one side of the fence, Corgo.

Are you impervious to irony? Or something?

Perot cost Bush a lot more in 1992 than Nader did to Gore.

I must be, because I'm pretty sure the electoral college system is pretty much the exact opposite of "might makes right."

I vote green but I live in a state where my vote doesn't matter.

So the fact that it encourages a two party system and discourages actual participation by the voters isn't a case of the status quo keeping a lock on things?

Teach me your wisdom, O wise sage.

I dislike the idea of someone potentially taking the white house with only 40% of the vote in their favor.