I'm a little baffled, to say the least, by Ralph Nader.

The guy says he wants Bush out of office, but it is a proven fact that by virtue of his being in the race he'll draw votes away from the Democratic candidate. In 2000 he sometimes received up to 7% of the popular vote in some states which often times meant the difference between Bush winning the state and Gore losing it.

He is running again in 2004, how can he not expect the same results?

My questions for debate are:

1. Why do you think Ralph Nader's motive for running this year is? Does he think he can really win, is it an idealogical/ego thing, or does he really support Bush?

2. As Democratic voters, what if anything, can we or should we do about it?

Edited to add: Debate questions aside, I'm legitimately curious here... I'm not trying to slam Ralph Nader in any way. I'm honestly not even very familiar with his positions. Just wanted to clarify that.

Ralph Nader is an idiot. There is no Reason for him to be running. There is no chance for him to win, he won't be included on any political debates on television, and for the reason that he wants to bring certain issues to the table is ludicrous. Its almost like Bush Payed him to run to allow bush to win. Its ludicrous. He is a liar for the fact that hes running to begin with, under the shroud that he runs for a reason. The Pot smoking old man hes to get his head out of the clouds and stop taking bush's money.

What gets me is how he claims he was in no way responsible for Gore losing in 2000. The guy is just incredible-he wants everyone to acknowledge their faults and owe up to thing st that they do, but yet-he's too perfect to do likewise. Not Ralphie, he's perfect unlike the rest of us.

Looks like Nader was rejected by the Greens for nomination, which means he wouldn't automatically be on the ballot in 22 states.

I wonder if he is going to try and fight that or just bow out.

Edited to Add:

This was finally picked up by the mainstream news too. Republicans Helping Nader in Oregon

Naders a joke . I think most people serious about getting him out of office will just vote for Kerry. I don't think he supports Bush, actually the opposite (in an interview on the Daily Show he said he would rather have Kerry than Bush).

I am always confused by the Dems hating Nader. Nader stands for things that neither of the "two parties" practice (in policy). I guess that they think that people who are liberal in their views might cast a vote away from them. Why? Nader is anti-death sentence, would pull the troops out of Iraq immediately, would sanction gay marraige, would like to eradicate guns, would seriously attack business with his environmetal policies. Of course, he won't become President, but neither of the two likelies will ever put in practice Nader's policies. Why on Earth would you believe in Nader's plan and then vote Democrat???

I saw Kerry on tv this weekend. He was shooting a gun and talking of his love for God. Do you think that will swing Nader fans? The Republicans are pulling 46% of the vote, Nader less than 2%. If you are in business, which of those markets would you go after? If the Dems lose this election it is because of them.

I guess I'll go ahead and answer my own question here. It seems to me that Ralph Nader is only looking out for Ralph Nader. He seems to be watching out for #1 and he'll do anything he can to win, even though that is a completely unrealistic proposition.

I don't think Nader supports Bush, but he sure doesn't have any problem taking money from his supporters. Nader and Kerry have a few policy differences, but on the most important things I think they agree. It would make logical sense that he would drop out and throw his support to Kerry, but he isn't doing that because he is looking out for himself.

GOP donors funding Nader - Bush supporters give independent's bid a financial lift


His own VP, Camejo completely disagrees with his philosophy:


This article clearly illustrates that Nader (while he might have had good intentions at one time) is in this to win for himself however unrealistic an expectation that might be at this point.

I am all for getting away from the two-party system, but frankly, this is not the year to consider doing that -- there is too much on the line. While I believe in a lot of the things Nader does myself, I am a realist and I know that he would never be elected. I chose to throw my support behind someone that supports most or even some of my beliefs and is electable.

I think Nader has it in his head that he is a real crusader. I'm sure he firmly believes it when he says that he did not take enough votes away from Gore in '00 to make a difference, but rather simply mobilized voters who would otherwise not vote at all. His clear conscience aside, peudo-studies like this one only serve to make him look more like a rationalizing megalomaniac.

I have great respect for what the man has done in the past, to alert consumers that big business was not only cheating them, but in the business of cheating them. But if his goal is to continue this legacy, his run for president is a puzzlement. He should be lobbying to be Secretary of Commerce in a Kerry Administration or something like that. Realistically speaking, he could do more in a previously anonymous bureaucratic job like this than a high-profile one that requires more attention to more issues than he's shown a capacity for.



He could possibly be right about taking votes away from Bush in this election. But it's not likely. Would ogling Democrats have switched parties to vote for John McCain in 2000 if he had won the Republican primary, just to protest Gore's conservatism? But I don't know if anything real can be done. We can point out that his biggest backers so far are Republican operatives, but that may only serve to drive people away from voting at all. IMO, we should just let the press flay him as an egomaniac and concentrate on getting Democrats to actually vote this time.

I pretty much agree with most of the people in the forum. I really don't understand
why Nader is running. Not to say he does not have the right to run, but from listening to his reasons for running, it seems it will be better served if he just pledged his support for Kerry instead of taking votes from him.

And with the Republicans helping get on the ballot and him accpeting what they are doing for him, it just leaves me more puzzled. Is he getting paid under the table by the Republican Party to ensure a Bush re-election??? I'm just wondering.

Cube Jockey

As much as I despise the idea of Bush winning this election, I find mind myself agreeing with Nader on this issue. You say your for reform, that's great because most of the status quo aren't. How exactly do you propose to change their mind?? Threaten not to vote for them?? You make it seem like this is not the election to let Bush win, well what about next election. If Republicans would choose a man like Bush over McCain, do you honestly think that it will ever be the "right" election year to push for change.

I read Nader's book, after the last election, because I didn't know too much about him. I would suggest we all take a look at it. Neither party is going to try and change they way elections are run. Neither will push to get rid of the faulty electoal college. Neither will push for a truer form of democracy. Why, because it is not in their overall best interest. The fewer parties able to obtain power the less the powerful have to listen to the people.

Here is an analogy,

Say there were only two gas stations side by side. Capitalism would have you believe that these two gas stations will fight it out between one another to get to a bottom line price. In truth, they will probably recognize that the people have no real choice. If they cooperate they will be double their prices. Why?? Because in the "real" world the people will need gas and be forced to go to them.

The same with our two party system. In Ralph's book he points out how both parties have made rules to make it harder for other people to run. They are ACTIVELY keeping the two party monopoly. Both the Republicans and Democrats have effectively disheartened approximately half of America. Liberals, socialist communist all group themselves as democrats. Conservative, nationalist, fascists, all rolled up into conservative. Others are just floating in the wind. How many people will the status quo make settle for the "lesser of two evils?" All of us.

Ralph Nader isn't talking about change he is pushing for it. Democrats are providing lip service. They will never push for campaign and voting reforms, it is not in their interest.