I'm not as concerned about Nader's quest for President in 2004 as I was in 2000. I think he has the right to enter the election. I also believe that most progressives will be mobilized by his entry and it may actually help the Democrats.

Yes, Ralph Nader has the right to run for president and No, it won't be as significant in 2004 as it was in 2000.

One of the difficulties General Wesley Clark faced when he jumped in the race was that of time and money. The clock is not in Ralph's favor. He will never be able to get on the ballot of all 50 states without a lot of money and a organization behind him. Will he be able to create such a organization with the election only nine months away? I have my doubts.

Will Ralph be able to garner enough support in the polls to be seen as a legitimate candidate and be able to crash the presidential debates? Very doubtful again. Even with the Green Party backing Nader couldn't get above the single digits in popularity. This year he doesn't even have the Greens backing his bid for the Oval Office. With the support of the Green Party, Nader appeared on the ballots in 43 states and the District of Columbia and won 2.7 percent of the vote. By comparison, in his two runs for president Ross Perot grabbed 19 percent.

Despite the glee of the Republicans of Ralph making mischief and handing the election to them on a silver platter, I believe the Democrats have had four years to prepare for The Return of Darth Nader. They now have two opponents to run against, but only one has the benefits of tons of money and a powerful organization behind him.

Ralph can and will be a pebble in the shoe of the Democratic nominee, but as to whether he can generate the "tipping effect" he had in Florida and New Hampshire in 2000, leeching votes away from Gore and throwing the states to Bush, I just don't believe Nader will be the player this time around that he was then.

Vanity, thy name is Ralph.

This election will be close, in my opinion. Any alternative candidate on the left will hurt the Democratic nominee.

This clearly hurts Democrats, especially if the nominee isn't "progressive" enough for the Green-types.

My question is why Nader isn't running Green. I know he made a promise not to run as the Green candidate... It just seems curious to me.

Why Ralph isnt running Green:




I am not "concerned" about Nader being a "spoiler." There is a reason why he is running - because the main candidates have sold out to corporations and are typical republicats. If Kerry (or Edwards) cant win against Bush, its THEIR fault, because THEY didnt run a good enough campaign and/or are too sold out. Maybe if they talked more about real issues and really represented working class values, there wouldnt be a need for a Ralph Nader.

Ralph Nader should be a concern to the Democratic Party. He is well known and is far to the left on the political spectrum. Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, this is where much of their base currently resides.

Uh, the article you cite - from last July - kinda says the exact opposite of what you claim it says:
In other words, the suggestion is that a shift to the left would lose the party votes. If this article is taken seriously, it indicates that the Democratic Party's base does not currently reside "far to the left on the political spectrum".

Even if it did, I believe that quite enough progressive voters (and enough ordinary, middle-of-the-road patriots) are so terrified by the first three years of the Bush regime that they'll run screaming from Ralph Nader - or anyone else who could help keep Bush in power.

That's what I've been saying too.

I want Bush out...but I do not want the Dem's or anyone else trying to limit our dismal choices any more than they have already. The DNC chose strategy over substance and now they need to stop whining and see if they made the right decision. If Nader get's Kerry's votes it will be because the difference between Bush and Kerry are basically only skin deep.

I will vote for Kerry but only because it has to be done. It's almost too depressing to consider that while Kerry may offer a smoother ride he'll be driving this country in the same sorry direction we are going now.

Ah... when theory runs smack-dab into reality.

Yes, in theory the above is true.

In reality however, there is not a serious Republican alive who would switch their vote to Nader now that he has entered the race. Any votes Nader does get will be at the expense of the Democrats. It is all well and good for Nader to say that if the democrats lose it is their fault, but reality does not support him on that point...

If I knock someone down, it is all fine for me to say in theory it is their fault for not having better footing, and from a certain point of view it is true. But the fact is, had he not been shoved, he would not have fallen.

Had nader not been in the race last time, Gore would have won, that is not supposition, it is mathematical fact. Even republians will not deny it, and they know it could be the same this time around too judging from the Glee with which they accept Nader into the race. Gore lost by a MUCH smaller segment of the vote than Nader took from the Democrats.

If Nader does NOT act as a spoiler this time around, it is because Democrats will not vote for him, KNOWING he will spoil the chances of the Democrats taking over the White House.

I agree Danya that the choice between a Senator who is hardwired into special interests and a Chief Executive who is a wholly owned subsidiary of Corporate America is like choosing if you want to be eaten by a hungry lion or a starving tiger, but as someone pointed out in the previous Darth Nader thread, I am a realist.

Realistically, I am very worried what another four years of George W. Bush in charge will do to America. If John Kerry is elected his excesses will be checked by a Republican Congress. Those checks and balances don't exist presently with one party control.

Philosophically, I am far more aligned with Nader and Dennis Kucinich than Kerry or Edwards. However, next Tuesday when I cast my vote in the Ohio Primary, I won't be throwing Dennis a bone.

I want a strong and unified Democratic Party to get George Bush OUT and that's all I care about. I'd rather take a imperfect Kerry or Edwards and get 50 percent of what I want than cast a protest vote for Kucinich that basically means nothing.

There are no awards for coming in second place in a presidential race. Nader can't win. He knows that. I know that. Everyone that casts their vote for him knows it too. That won't stop a lot of people from doing so and for the tiny minority that opt for the principle over the practical, I respect their decision even though I disagree with it.

Too much is at stake to waste my one vote on what is ultimately a meaningless, feel-good gesture. I want a tangible result, not a transitory gesture.

As far as the last election I don't blame Nader at all. He had no control over Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, or the Supreme Court for putting the losing candidate in office.

If someone wants to vote for an alternate candidate they have every right to do so.. The alternative is to just stay home and not have a voice at all which is what many others have been reduced to thanks to the lack of choices they have.

Maybe a lot of people think both front runners are so bad they can't bring themselves to vote for either one. It means it makes no difference to them who wins. In theory that's what those voting for Nader are saying as well. They are simply refusing to give up their voice. Let them vote on principle rather than not at all.

I totally disagree!

Its not a "mathematical fact" that Gore would have won because unless you have ESP you do not know how those people would have voted had Nader not been in the race. Every one of those people could have just stayed home for all you know. IMO yes he cost them Florida, but I'm not so sure about New Hampshire, but you CANNOT say thats "fact". Hell I could argue that if Pat Buchanon hadn't have been in the race that the Florida debacle would have never been an issue since all his votes would have gone to Bush, however to do so would be intellectually dishonest.

I would like to add that everyone has a right to run and McAuliffe criticizing Nader is appalling. Just proves to be that they don't think they can beat Bush. If they were confident this would be a non-issue.


*******ImrsUrSoulInLove I would appreciate it if you would fix the below quote. I did not say what you have me quoted as saying**********

Actually, that is not neccisarily true. One must take into account the fact that more Republicans than Democrats voted for Nader in New Hampshire, that Buchanan helped swing states to Gore's favor, etc. It is not Nader's fault that Gore lost, its Gore's fault. He didnt run a good enough campaign, and was a corporate sellout and a liar. He actually should have won in Florida, but they illegaly didnt let many (mostly african-american democrats) people vote because they were on the list of felons that cant vote, when they werent supposed to be on that list. So blame the democrats for not standing up for themselves and making a large poing of this, they deserved to lose that election.

Vanity is thy name? Have you ever seen the demeanor of Ralph
Nader? He's about the most un-pretentious presidential hopeful
that I've ever seen. I do not, for one minute, believe he has
jumped into the race to satiate his EGO.

Why are you so upset with Nader? Why not be upset with all
the Americans who actually agree with his platform,
but they are too SCARED to vote for him, because they
have bought into the ideology that only a Dem/Rep can ever
have a chance of winning!

and why not blame monica moorehead, (WORKERS WORLD PARTY) who had over 1000 votes in florida, why couldn't 535 people that voted for her have voted for gore? or how about David McReynolds (SOCIALIST PARTY USA) who had about 600 votes in florida? heck, if 225 people that voted for them instead of gore had voted for gore, we wouldn't be in this mess (or maybe we would be)

danya mentioned the supreme court also. let us not forget Justice Antonin Scalia's concurring opinion, issued on Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, when the stay was issued, when he argued that the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of Florida law was wrong, and he made the mischievous argument that to count "legally cast votes" threatened irreparable harm to Bush, "casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."

no I think ralph should run, perhaps with kucinich as a running mate.

I don't think Kerry (just Kerry now that Edwards is out) has anything to worry about now that Nadar is running. Nadar never really worried Gore or Bush in 2000 and he is probably just as weak now as he was in 2000!

Even though I think Nader is this best choice out of the three candidates, I think he has entered the race far too late in the game, and has yet to establish a campaign worthy enough to put him in the white house. Since his announcement to run I have seen very little about him in the mainstream media, and if he wants to get the votes he needs, he needs to get more involve in the publics eye too make up for his late entrance.

The problem with this approach is that it only looks at the short term -- and we have many Bushes and others just as scary in the wings.

A Hypothetical situation:

So, say Nader thinks about it and decides it's not a good idea to keep running. Let's say that everyone who was going to vote for Nader decides to vote for Kerry and not sit home on election day. Then Kerry wins.

Then it's 2008 -- you have Jeb Bush or someone equally as scary running.

Lesser of the two evils again -- and again -- and again -- and again. Meanwhile, the Democratic party keeps slipping more and more to the right trying to enlargen their base. They know that the left HAS to vote for them because they'll keep pointing to what happens when they vote third party (George Bush) and they'll keep moving right as long as they're just left of the Repubs.

Short Term = Bush is removed from office
Long Term = There is no voice for progressives and liberals anymore. We will always be beholden to corporate interests, which as we've seen can lead to war, unemployment and poverty.

On the other hand, not getting Bush out now could cost the planet far more than we can afford. If the past four years are any example, and the fact that another four years of Bush would be worse since he won't have to worry about re-election.

I really feel for us progressives this election. It's a very tough choice we have to make.

I voted unsure -- while the back lash against Nader is strong this tie around, a recent poll put him at 6% -- it really could go either way.

"Throwing that bone" to Kucinich, by the way, might have made Ralph poll much lower since many progressives would feel that Kucinich would be a better representative of progressive values than Kerry. I voted for Kucinich in the primary, and since Kerry won I'M feeling disenfrachised again. Nader may fill that place for others that feel that way.

While I'm unsure who I will vote for at this time, I do know that Kerry is not a good choice for me.

I don't think the Nader issue is necessarily due to ego, as many media elites have suggested. In retrospect, Nader probably cost Gore the election. No, he won't have much influence this time around but yes, he will put new ideas into the mix. It will be interesting to see if Nader can establish a soldified base of supporters (most polls have him at 4-6 percent in nationwide individual votes). If he can, flip-flop Kerry may once again be forced to suddenly embrace new progressive ideals he has voted against for decades. All in all, I like to see as many candidates run as possible. Unfortunately, our system of government is set in a way that pushes smaller parties away.

Yes Kerry should worry about Nader as this is likely to be a very close race and even a small percentage of voters being drawn away to Nader is a problem. Just ask Gore. If Nader had not been in the race Florida would not have been a issue.

Maybe Kerry should consider trying to get Nader as a running mate. That might cost him some moderate voters but will the gain in progessives be less the the loss of moderates? Personally I say no.

I agree. For many of us there is simply no one left to vote for. I have been a lifelong conservative Republican, card carrying and loyal, but my principles will not allow me to vote for Bush this time and Kerry is just not an option. I refuse to vote for Kerry simply on the grounds that he's not Bush.

Americans simply must get over our fear of third party candidates if there's going to be any real change in this country. The two major parties have held us in a "lesser of two evils" debate for so long that I, for one, have forgotten what's it's like to actually feel good about voting. This is insane!

Wally

New poll out today showing Nader with 5% of the vote...and if Nader got out, votes for Bush and Kerry would be neck-to-neck.

Also heard that Nader is having a difficult time getting on the ballot in many states. What I don't understand about Nader's announcement to run is why did he wait so long to make up his mind! This man is by no means a newbie in the political/election arena. It takes time and mega bucks to get enough signatures to get on the ballot. It is a monumental task and changing from the Green to the Independent party lost him some base supporters. Really don't understand his reasoning this election year. Probably will get on the ballot in enough states to be a spoiler.

Danya, please provide some credible links to support this. Otherwise it's off topic to say the least.

The fact Nader is running at all should alarm the Dems. IMHO this election won't even be close. I predict Bush is going to win in a landslide victory...why do I say this?

1) John Kerry keeps opening his mouth and saying ignorant things and when questioned on it says even more stupid things.

2) Iraq is going to turn for the better (and already is). The press is missing the boat here IMHO beacause what is going on (positive) in Iraq would astound most Americans because of the daily negative reporting. I believe this is going to get more attention soon.

3) Osama will be caught or killed and/or his top leadership eliminated.

4) The economy is in recovery. Let's face it the tax cuts worked. Had Gore won in 2000 I dare say we would still be in recession after 911.

5) How long can the Democratic party survive on anger (at GW) and have no vision? I believe we are seeing the beginning of the end of the DNC.

Nader will affect the election if ONLY to have the DNC cave in to his 5% of the vote. Thus is why we have 3rd parties. It's a good thing IMHO.

On the night of Kerry's Unity Gala, former President Carter made a public appeal to Nader to get out of the race which indicates to me the Democrats are afraid he will pull the most votes from Kerry rather than Bush. Then, I saw a CNN clip of Nader saying he was going to meet with Kerry and reassure him that his (Nader's) votes were going to pull votes from Bush rather than Kerry.



So, stay tuned...Nader isn't going to back out of the race for the Democrats, but I guess he will give them a refresher course on Campaigning 101!

I have to agree with both of these comments. When I first heard he had decided to run again, I was pretty awe-stricken, because I believed he was just being selfish.

I still think he is running for personally for more self-pleasing reasons (I mean who wouldn't be pumped by receiving the bid for President by 5% of America???), but I think he will remind the Democratic candidates (whoever the VP will be) what it means to be a democrat.

You cannot necessarily be disappointed about him running, because if he is garnering votes and attention, it must mean he is connecting with some form of the public that both the Democrats and the Republicans seem to be missing.

So, despite his seemingly self-serving reason for running for President, in the end I think it will be better that he was in...

unless Bush wins again.

Nader should run as much as he wants. Will it hurt the Democrats? Only if they let it. The Democrats should be able to steal this election on anti-death sentiment from Iraq and congressional hearing twists. Nader will pick up a vote here and there, but it will only kill a Democrat if they are a crummy campaighner and don't stand strong.

Nader could make a difference if it's close, as could the Libertarians. But I don't think it's going to be close. The signs are shaping up for a Bush landslide. Check the recent Dick Morris columns. Remembef him? The guy who thought up Clinton's "triangulation" strategy? There are a few sharper political analysts but only a few, and this time I think Morris' columns are right on. Doesn't look like the economy is going to derail that. Iraq might if it turns sour in a big way.

Mr. Nader, according to CNN news today, is having serious problems obtaining enough signatures to get on states ballots. So, he is going to risk the other option of getting 15,000 signatures in total. Please give me a clue as to Nader's reasoning in waiting so long to announce his decision to run and then to switch from Green to Independent which has lost him supporters and a whole different ball game in fulfilling election requirements? Oh...rest easy Democrats, Nader assured J. F. Kerry during their meeting that he (Nader) would do far more harm to the Bush election rather than Kerry's.

Oh, Dick Morris....is he still in the political scene? He's predicting a landslide election for Bush, huh? Wonder what he knows that we don't? There are two other presidential elections that went sour for the Democratic candidates not to mention embarrassing for the party. Remember gloom and doom McGovern and more gloom and doom Mondale that promised the voters he would raise their taxes? Well, IMO, when mainstream America finally starts tuning in to the campaign rhetoric...they will react to Kerry's campaign theme just as they did to McGovern's and Mondale's...they want to hear some sign of HOPE...and so far, I have not heard one word of HOPE from Kerry! Promising the MOON is a far cry from giving the American people HOPE!

So...I guess we should pray that Nader's troubles in fulfilling the election requirements continues and that Kerry and the Democrats don't figure out how to give the American people something to HOPE about.

Nader is going to have an impact. There are a lot of disillusioned extremists on the left who don't like Kerry because of the war, Patriot Act, and NAFTA, and they will go Nader this November. The Democrats had a chance to pick a strong candidate like Edwards or Gephardt, instead they picked the worst one in the field. If the situation in Iraq gets better, Kerry's in for pounding.

I would wager that Nader has a larger impact than the Libertarians. If I remember correctly, Hillary Clinton recieved more votes in her race for senate than Harry Browne did in his presidential race. I just don't see a strong anti-government feeling building up to this election. The issues of corruption, need for election reform, as well as highly publicized government abuses just isn't in the national consciousness this time around.

Ralph, Ralph, Ralph...
I love the guy to death, but this is just ridiculous. He has every right to run in this race, but does he honestly think he's going anywhere? If he wants to effect change he could call on the candidates to do what's right and to renounce special interests, etc. but he's going to do nothing by running. He's a good man with great ideas but he should've waited until 2008 when the progressives of this country aren't so polarized to get el presidente out of office. I can see it now: the progressives who voted for him last time are concerned with electing someone other than Bush... they vote Kerry and sacrifice principle for pragmatism... Kerry wins and Nader decides he'll run again in '08... he is summarily laughed out of the country. He's really going to do more harm than good for himself by doing this. I highly doubt that he'll pick up that 6% because people don't really care that much about their principles in this race. He has a lot of good points and I hate to see them go to waste like this... oh well, such is the nature of the world.

Timing is everything in politics, and he is showing that he possesses little understanding of it. The collective mood of voters changes a lot. From anti-incumbent years, to years in which the pendulum swings to the left or right. Nader definitely should've waited until '08. If I were him, I would have become engaged in more practical matters. Perhaps running for a house or senate seat in a traditionally liberal state. He could've raised money using PACs and other groups to build up an impressive war chest. Unfortunately, he will draw less votes this time around then he received in '00.

Yes.
I must be realistic. Any vote for anyone other than Bush or Kerry is like not voting at all.
I would think that most people that would vote for Nader (or any other candidate that isn't the republic and democratic candidate for that matter) don't want Bush in office. If this is true, then those people must vote for Kerry (the Democrat) in order for their vote to do any good in order to keep Bush from becoming President for a second term.
-
I wish Americans could vote how they feel they should, but at this point, there is no chance that a candidate that isn't affiliated with one of the two big parties is going to win a Presidential election. Until there are a good number of independents (non-Demcrat, non-Republican) in Congress, there is no hope that a President will be elected that isn't a Democrat or a Republican.
-
It's the nature of the beast.