Is a vote for Nader a vote taken away from the Democrats?

[Ustwo]

Based on the Nader supporters I've known, and I'll admit its only been a handful, I’d have to say that Nader attracts people who are unhappy with both parties and may not have voted if Nader wasn’t running.

Now undoubtedly some of the votes in 2000 that Nader got would have gone to Gore, I have no proof of this, but I think its true.

But in this upcoming contest, I'm willing to wager that most of the Nader supporters will be dissatisfied leftists, who are the type that think republican/democrats are the same, much like Nader does. These people maybe dislike Bush more but they weren't going to vote for a Democrat anyways. Republicans have the same problem with the Libertarians, and while many Republicans and Libertarians share a lot of views, its by no means fair to say that all Libertarians would vote for a Republican.

You have to add the confused vote. I think many Nader voters had no CLUE what the Green party stood for. They most likely thought it was all about the environment. I've seen parallels with people who say they are Libertarian yet are hard line left wingers who don't have a clue what Libertarianism is, besides their drug policy, and would most likely faint if they knew.

I think all in all you will NOT see the dreaded siphoning of votes from whatever Democrat gets the nomination, but instead will see people who thought they had no choice at all vote for Nader.

Nader may become a great excuse for a Democrat defeat, but I doubt he will be the cause.

[balderdash111]

I don't think so. Like you, I have no data to back this up, but I suspect that Nader won't be bringing anyone new to the polls.

Instead, he will attract some unhappy Republicans and some unhappy Democrats (I suspect more of the latter) who generally vote with the party but want to make a point by voting outside of it.

The people who are unhappy with the Democratic and Republican parties and who wouldn't vote for either one in any case likely would have voted for one of the myriad of protest candidates instead. Some of them may switch their vote for Nader so as to make the concept of third party candidacies look more viable, but they would have voted even if Nader weren't there.

I heard Nader say his polls indicated that in some state(s) (maybe just one), 60-something percent of his supporters in the 2000 election said they wouldn't have voted for any candidate but Nader, but I suspect the poll isn't accurate.

The Nader supporters had a mission, and they wanted Ralph to look viable (at that point, they were probably a little defensive against all the "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" talk around election day). I suspect they would have voted for someone either way.

[Phaenx]

I like what Nader said on that show. Basically, it was "Eff them, their party is a bloated sack of butt."

He won't get elected no, but I don't think he really cares if he siphons votes from the Democrats.

[Superbelt]

Hmm, Well I have seen him basically this in the last few days.

1. Terry, Edwards, Kerry. Don't worry. I won't hurt your chances. I want Bush out too.

2. I'm going after disenfranchised bush/republican voters this time.

So maybe he is just mounting a front to siphon off of Bush this time around rather than to hurt the Dems...?

[Boo]

Sorry, but I don't hear too many of my conservative republicans stepping over to Nader. He is anti-ANWR and in Alaska that is cutting out throats.

IMO - He will cause chaos in the democratic camps.

[Superbelt]

Ooh I know it's pretty foolish to assume he can get any conservative votes.

But it looks like he is serious about not wanting to sabotage the democrat again.

I think he sees the damage he could possibly do this time.

[maximusveritas]

Last time, Nader definitely stole some Democrats and Independents. This time, he'll only get his relatives and perhaps a couple other mentally ill individuals.

[powerclown]

Nader is for Change --> Republicans are conservative --> Conservatives dislike Change --> Democrats are for Change --> Only, Nader isn't a Democrat --> Votes for Change split between Democrats & Nader --> Bush wins Re-election.

[Scipio]

Back in 2000, Bush wasn't the liberal kryptonite that he is now. By that I mean that his power to cause lefty voters to turn out simply to vote against him is greater by an order of magnitude this time around.

In 2000, a lot of Nader voters assumed Gore would win. They probably won't make that mistake again.

[BigBlueWrecking]

Historically third party people that run hurt the party in control of the White House more than the other. This happened with Gore and Bush 1 (Perot) Parties without control have a tendency to band together and not let a person like Nadar disrupt their fight. We will see if this trend continues, but I think he did a lot of damage to democrats in 2000, but will do more to Republicans looking for another option this time.

[JohnnyRock]

I voted for him last time and would again this year if I wasn't concerned about taking a vote away from ANYONE that can BEAT BUSH!! That said, I live in a state that will undoubtedly vote democrat so any vote I give Nadar--if I do-- will hopefully just push others to fight this ridiculous two-party system our government has evolved into. Tough choice and I won't make it until I'm in the booth, but for sure no right-wing, Jesus freak will get myvote--guess that's one not for Bush.

[philosopherking]

I'm most likely going to vote for Nader, but if he wasn't running I'd go for the Democrat. I want Bush out of the white house just as much as the next liberal, but I feel that I can't compromise my principles and ignore a candidate that I agree with on almost all issues. Not that my vote will really matter, living in Nebraska. States don't come more Republican than this one. In my experience, most people that don't vote don't pay enough attention to politics to even hear Nader's message.

[BigBlueWrecking]

he will not be on the ballot in a lot of states. Hopefully that will make some of your decisions easier. If you truly think there is no difference between the parties, I can see voting for him. If you think that one is better than the other, not only are you wasting a vote, you are going out of your way to hurt the party that you would have supported over the other.

[ubertuber]

I am bothered by the idea that Nader "stole" votes from the Democrats. The Dems aren't entitled to those votes - if they couldn't get the votes that went to Nader, they didn't deserve them.

[filtherton]

I think this whole blame nader thing is getting a lit-tle old. If you really want to blame somebody, blame the people who voted for nader. Blame gore for running a shoddy campaign. Blame clinton for not campaigning enough for the democratic cause. How can you even attempt to deserve respect when in the face of failure all you can do is blame someone else? Answer me democratic party!!

I realize that if nader hadn't ran, gore would've won, but it's not like the dems lacked enough time to attempt to appeal to nader's demographic.

That being said, i think this time around voting your conscience(at least on the left) will mean voting against bush.

[Holo]

What do you think of the points brought by this site?

http://www.ralphdontrun.net


I haven't voted in my life and will not for reasons that would take a thread of its own, but I think Nader did make some impact in the final decision due to the closeness of the race. If those ppl didn't have Nader as a choice they'd prolly pick Gore. If I had voted I wouldn't bother voting for Nader because a non-partisan candidate will never win the popular vote. JMO.

[Sparhawk]

I think 3rd party candidacies are fine, they bring new people into the process, and in a lot of cases show where the two main parties are lacking (in recent memory, we had environmental issues with Nader, and deficit spending with Perot).

My problem with Nader, both last time and this time around, is the intellectual - fucking - dishonesty he displays when he says there is no difference between the two parties. Give me a fucking break.

[Force 10]

We can only hope.

[Jizz-Fritter]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Based on the Nader supporters I've known, and I'll admit its only been a handful, I’d have to say that Nader attracts people who are unhappy with both parties and may not have voted if Nader wasn’t running.

There was ones state (Maine or New Hampshire) where the majority of Nader voters were registered Republicans.

Originally posted by Boo
Sorry, but I don't hear too many of my conservative republicans stepping over to Nader. He is anti-ANWR and in Alaska that is cutting out throats.

I find it interesting that you say that, when Nader got 10% of the Alaskan vote in 2000. Maybe things have really changed.

Originally posted by Sparhawk
My problem with Nader, both last time and this time around, is the intellectual - fucking - dishonesty he displays when he says there is no difference between the two parties. Give me a fucking break.

You are ignorant. Ralph Nader NEVER said there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, he said there is little difference between the two.

My verdict: Although I will probably vote for Nader, I think Bush will be re-elected. But it would be FUCKING HILARIOUS if Bush lost. (Historically speaking, that is :P)

[Conclamo Ludus]

I heard an idea floating around NPR today, that Nader being so much further left than Kerry, it will paint Kerry to be a more moderate candidate by pushing the debate further left. Kerry will be in a better position to pick up any swing voters if he come off as the more moderate of the three candidates. Its just an idea. I don't know how much water it holds. It sounds like a more hopeful perspective for those on the left, but it may not be the most realistic perspective.

Personally I feel pushed further and further away from the left and the right. This election year is already ugly, and is not going to get any prettier anytime soon. My vote usually goes to the right, but I'm not sure anymore, Bush is driving me crazy with dropping cash on anything that comes his way. I'm glad there is plenty of time until the election to make up my mind, but I fear that the centrists in this country will be more an more alienated as the election grows nearer. The political dialogue in this country seems to taste worse and worse every year. No matter what, I can't stop drinking the stuff though.

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by Jizz-Fritter
You are ignorant. Ralph Nader NEVER said there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, he said there is little difference between the two.

Calling me ignorant, then arguing semantics. A quick Google search on "nader" "no difference" pulls up plenty of references, and plenty of other "ignorant" people

Here's Sam Donaldson:

DONALDSON: But he says he would not open the Wildlife Arctic Refuge to oil exploration; Bush would. He says he would prevent new roads in national forests for logging; Bush would not. You say that’s not a difference?

NADER: Those are linguistic differences

Salon.com:

If that sounds illogical coming from a candidate who simultaneously proclaims that there is "no difference" between Democrats and Republicans

Baltimore City Paper:

This said, Nader is himself guilty of gross rhetorical distortions, notably his stock declaration that there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Sure, I have days when I feel that way, but anyone concerned about abortion, the environment, gun control, gay rights, tax cuts, the Supreme Court, or the U.S. Constitution knows better.

MotherJones.com:

"You cannot believe what I have had to live with, in terms of most people's opinion about how Ralph and the Greens stole the election," she says. "The biggest part of their anger is that he did refer to Gore and Bush as tweedlee-dee and tweedlee-dum, and continued to say that there was no difference. When in fact we all know there were some major differences. My local organizing will be totally destroyed."

There's plenty more, but why should I waste my time with these ignorant fools. Don't they know it's "little difference," not "no difference?"

edit: just saw this one, here's a whole page of quotes on and by Nader:

http://www.damnedbigdifference.org/quotes

[Tholo]

Im awfully frightened of what Nader will do to this election, but hopefully its too late in the game for any Democrats to be fooled into throwing away their vote.

[pocon1]

Nader did not cause Gore to lose last election. It was the gun control issue. Notice how no one is touching that this year, even though the Assault Weapons Ban is about to expire? Gore lost his won state because of his support of gun control. Hell, Dean was Governor of the only state that allowed concealed carry without a permit.

[gibingus]

i'm in near total agreement with ustwo's take on this one.

i think he also hit the nail on the head with his assement of the green and libertarian party lines. i find portions of each party very attractive, their platforms are very intriguing, but at times conflicted. they do, however, present a possibly interesting ground where certain elements of the left and right wings might come together on some issues.... should those issues be deemed as the major priorities.

[ubertuber]

Originally posted by Tholo
Im awfully frightened of what Nader will do to this election, but hopefully its too late in the game for any Democrats to be fooled into throwing away their vote.

AAHH! What? You are frightened that people may CHOOSE to vote for Nader because they like him even more than Kerry/Edwards? Those votes wouldn't be thrown away. Hopefully they would convince the dems that if they want those votes they'll have to listen to the people casting them. Maybe the Greens will even be a viable party some day... But for now, it is absurd to generalize that Nader votes are thrown away. Some people actually believe in the party and want that support registered. It is for these reasons that I'll consider voting Libertarian instead of Republican. If Bush wants my vote, he'll have to earn it, not just be more attractive than the Democratic candidate.

(I'd vote neither for Nader nor Kerry/Edwards - it's just the principle at stake here that gets me going)

[mml]

I think it is pretty clear that having Nader in the 2000 election cost Gore the presidency. Yes, Nader got votes from both Dems and Reps as well as Green, Independents, etc...but the majority of those voters who would choose to vote at all, would have gone to Gore. That being said, Gore ran one of the worse campaigns in modern Presidential politics (right up there with Dukakis) and he and his campaign are ultimately responsible for the loss.

Now, I do not think that Nader will play quite as much of a factor in 2004. Dems and Libs in general are pretty dissatisfied with President Bush and most won't do the "I'm voting my conscience" routine. However, barring any major events, I think this is going to be a very close election and every vote will count. So Nader may yet have a role to play.

I have a suspicion that Nader is simply trying to ensure that some of his issues are addressed by the candidates and that as the election gets closer, he will gracefully back out and support the Dem. (Actually this is probably a long shot, but I can always hope. )

[Jizz-Fritter]

Sparhawk: In Nader's book about the 2000 election (Crashing the Party), he made a specific point that he does not say "no difference". He said there are some difference, but many journalists unwitting change his words to mean something completely different.

Your ignorance of the difference is fairly common, thanks to those careless secondary sources.

I dare you to find an audio source or a direct written source where he says, "no difference..."

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by Jizz-Fritter
Sparhawk: In Nader's book about the 2000 election (Crashing the Party), he made a specific point that he does not say "no difference". He said there are some difference, but many journalists unwitting change his words to mean something completely different.

Your ignorance of the difference is fairly common, thanks to those careless secondary sources.

I dare you to find an audio source or a direct written source where he says, "no difference..."

Again with the pointless arguing about semantics. He may have never said "no difference," but he definitely said "the only difference between the parties is the speed with which their knees hit the floor" when corporations come knocking. Here's just a few issues where the parties have differences: Environment, Gay Rights, Health Care, Reproductive Choice, Budget, Tax Policy, Women's Rights, Worker's Rights, International Affairs.

To say that there is no (or little, or some, or whatever) difference is as asanine as it is preposterous.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Sparhawk
Reproductive Choice

Mmmm abortion to hard to type?

I love PC speak

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Mmmm abortion to hard to type?

I love PC speak

I just finished talking to this other guy about arguing over semantics.... So

[Jizz-Fritter]

Originally posted by Sparhawk
To say that there is no (or little, or some, or whatever) difference is as asanine as it is preposterous.

Do Democrats and Republicans tweak at twigs or differ at the root of the problem?

That's Nader's point of you, and that is preposterous.

[Zander]

Yes, as it happened in last election, the Republican party actually paid for some Nader ads...in Oregon I think

[tricks]

I voted for Nader last election for the "Third Party viability" reason. There was no question that Bush was going to win my State so any vote here was a wasted vote anyway.

[kutulu]

I voted for Nader last time (I even went to one of his rallies) but this time I'm very upset that he is running. To me, it is far more important to get a tyrant like Bush out of office than it is to "send a message."

Presidents in their second term are dangerous because they don't have to worry about re-election. They can push their personal agenda's as much as they want.

A small list of things that Bush wasn't afraid to do as a 1st term POTUS:

Patriot Act
War in Iraq
Gay Marriage
Siding with religion in separation of church and state issues
Relaxation of environmental laws (especially the Kyoto Treaty)

These are all huge issues, just think of the things he will try in his second term if re-elected!

I think it is extremely selfish for Nader to be running again. Last election was very close. It would not have taken many votes for the election to go to Gore. I just hope that Kerry can win.

[Scipio]

It might be a blip, but a recent poll has Nader at 6%. I doubt, however, that he will pull that many votes in November.