Nader Factor

[Gustaf]

no look at the 4 previous posts, you guys didn't say anything.  

Ok and back to Nader, do you think he will run or not?

Not sure, most likely not. There is little too gain for him this time, he made his point in 2000. He is going to threaten to run, and thus force the Dems to worry about his issues. But he won't actually do it, that would just be plain stupid.

What's with the big post-complaints? Is it that harmful to make a few innocent meaningless posts?

[© tweed]

no look at the 4 previous posts, you guys didn't say anything.  

Ok and back to Nader, do you think he will run or not?

Not sure, most likely not. There is little too gain for him this time, he made his point in 2000. He is going to threaten to run, and thus force the Dems to worry about his issues. But he won't actually do it, that would just be plain stupid.

What's with the big post-complaints? Is it that harmful to make a few innocent meaningless posts?

I guess jr isn't having a good day today, so he is taking it out on me.  What can I say.

[jravnsbo]

Nader said he got 38% of his vote from people that said they would have voted Gore, 25% who would have voted Bush and rest from people that would not have otherwise voted.

[Gustaf]

Nader said he got 38% of his vote from people that said they would have voted Gore, 25% who would have voted Bush and rest from people that would not have otherwise voted.

What do you mean, "Nader said"? What is he basing it on?

[jravnsbo]

He said that on C-Span this morning from polling they did on election day 2000.

Nader said he got 38% of his vote from people that said they would have voted Gore, 25% who would have voted Bush and rest from people that would not have otherwise voted.

What do you mean, "Nader said"? What is he basing it on?

[Gustaf]

If it's Nader's, or the greens, own polling it could easily be biased. (I am not challenging the numbers, they look reasonable, just that I'm always sceptical about people making their own polls, something I have learned by experience). Nader has to show that he cost Gore the election, that's the only way he can black-mail the Democrats.  

He said that on C-Span this morning from polling they did on election day 2000.

Nader said he got 38% of his vote from people that said they would have voted Gore, 25% who would have voted Bush and rest from people that would not have otherwise voted.

What do you mean, "Nader said"? What is he basing it on?

[Gustaf]

If it's Nader's, or the greens, own polling it could easily be biased. (I am not challenging the numbers, they look reasonable, just that I'm always sceptical about people making their own polls, something I have learned by experience). Nader has to show that he cost Gore the election, that's the only way he can black-mail the Democrats.  

He said that on C-Span this morning from polling they did on election day 2000.

Nader said he got 38% of his vote from people that said they would have voted Gore, 25% who would have voted Bush and rest from people that would not have otherwise voted.

What do you mean, "Nader said"? What is he basing it on?

So you'd rather have someone against them making all the polls today?

I'm not sure what you mean...
When a party or candidate conducts a poll and it gives a result that is beneficial to said party or candidate, I would be sceptical. Is that weird?

The best thing would of course be unbiased, objective institutions conducting polls.

[Gustaf]

If it's Nader's, or the greens, own polling it could easily be biased. (I am not challenging the numbers, they look reasonable, just that I'm always sceptical about people making their own polls, something I have learned by experience). Nader has to show that he cost Gore the election, that's the only way he can black-mail the Democrats.  

He said that on C-Span this morning from polling they did on election day 2000.

Nader said he got 38% of his vote from people that said they would have voted Gore, 25% who would have voted Bush and rest from people that would not have otherwise voted.

What do you mean, "Nader said"? What is he basing it on?

So you'd rather have someone against them making all the polls today?

I'm not sure what you mean...
When a party or candidate conducts a poll and it gives a result that is beneficial to said party or candidate, I would be sceptical. Is that weird?

The best thing would of course be unbiased, objective institutions conducting polls.

..that did come out kind of weird.  But what I meant to say, was this:  even though a Party conducts it's own polls, I would agree that's biased.  But say the Republican Party conducted a poll on the Democratic Party, wouldn't you say that's going to be biased as well?

I do agree with you though, the best way is for a 3 Party to conduct polls of each, being moderate of course.

Oh, well, that would be equally biased, I didn't mean to imply that...

[© tweed]

Nader said he got 38% of his vote from people that said they would have voted Gore, 25% who would have voted Bush and rest from people that would not have otherwise voted.

A 13% net would have thrown the election to Gore.  and there remains no way that 25% of his supporters would have supported Bush.  Mader is a sack of egotistical lies, only a fool would believe him anyway.

That makes me sound like Democrat doesn't it?  

[Gustaf]

Nader said he got 38% of his vote from people that said they would have voted Gore, 25% who would have voted Bush and rest from people that would not have otherwise voted.

A 13% net would have thrown the election to Gore.  and there remains no way that 25% of his supporters would have supported Bush.  Mader is a sack of egotistical lies, only a fool would believe him anyway.

That makes me sound like Democrat doesn't it?  

Nader has to make people believe he affected outcome. I thought that was the whole point of him running?

[© tweed]

The point of him running was to hopefully get 5% of the vote in order to get federal funding for 2004.  Guess what?  He didn't get it.  But we have 8 years of GWB thanks to him.

[jravnsbo]

Thanks Ralph!

-Dems: run dean and lose or runa  centrist and Nader runs again, whom oh what to do?

The point of him running was to hopefully get 5% of the vote in order to get federal funding for 2004.  Guess what?  He didn't get it.  But we have 8 years of GWB thanks to him.

[© tweed]

We're going to lose anyway, nominate Dean.

[jravnsbo]

Yes please do then the GOP can make big gains iont he senate too !

[© tweed]

Yes please do then the GOP can make big gains iont he senate too !

I don't think the Presidential candidate will make much of a difference in congressional matters.

[jravnsbo]

I do, they won't support dean and in the last 10-15 years the number of staright ticket voters has increased not declined.

Yes please do then the GOP can make big gains iont he senate too !

I don't think the Presidential candidate will make much of a difference in congressional matters.

[© tweed]

I do, they won't support dean and in the last 10-15 years the number of staright ticket voters has increased not declined.

Yes please do then the GOP can make big gains iont he senate too !

I don't think the Presidential candidate will make much of a difference in congressional matters.

Do you have a link supporting that claim?

[Gustaf]

The point of him running was to hopefully get 5% of the vote in order to get federal funding for 2004.  Guess what?  He didn't get it.  But we have 8 years of GWB thanks to him.

I thought the point was to force the Dems to take care of the environment, lean more towards him.

[NHPolitico]

The point of him running was to hopefully get 5% of the vote in order to get federal funding for 2004.  Guess what?  He didn't get it.  But we have 8 years of GWB thanks to him.

Do you know when the Golden Age of conservative media was? During Clinton's 8 years. Liberals should be thanking Nader. Subscriptions to liberal magazines and donations to liberal charities are way up since January 2001.  Think positive!

[NHPolitico]

The point of him running was to hopefully get 5% of the vote in order to get federal funding for 2004.  Guess what?  He didn't get it.  But we have 8 years of GWB thanks to him.

I thought the point was to force the Dems to take care of the environment, lean more towards him.

That's, of course, an interesting point. Do parties want power or influence?  You'd think the survival instinct is the most powerful of the two. I think parties are willing to sell their soul in exchange for their existence.  So, I'd say that the Greenies care more about having the party be a lasting entity than having the Dems absorb their ideas.

[NHPolitico]

no look at the 4 previous posts, you guys didn't say anything.  

Ok and back to Nader, do you think he will run or not?

Yeah, as an idependent.  So he won't be on the abllot in as many sates.  but he has to run because he is an egomaniac.

{excerpted: NYT, 1/10/04}

At this point, Mr. Nader said in an interview this week, a run depends only on his ability to collect enough money and volunteers to mount a credible effort. Otherwise, he said, he has a zillion reasons to go ahead — including, he insists, that doing so would be good for the Democrats.

"But you've got to have money, and you've got to have volunteers," he said, though declining to specify the levels he would need of each. "The verdict is still out, but I'll decide by the end of the month."

Four years ago, he said he was running for president because he believed that the major-party nominees, Mr. Gore and George W. Bush, were virtually indistinguishable and that the parties were too cozy with corporate America. Now Mr. Nader, 69, says he has seen enough of Mr. Bush's administration to make defeating him and ending Republican control of Congress the chief goals. And those goals are more achievable, he says, if he joins the race.

By hammering away at populist themes like a higher minimum wage, union rights and occupational health regulations, all of which he says have been neglected, he would force the leading Democratic contenders to move left. That, he says, would expand the party's base, drawing out more liberal voters, some angry enough at him about 2000 that they would vote for the Democratic nominee instead, and many who would vote Democratic in close House and Senate races.

"I would not do this if I didn't really want to defeat Bush," Mr. Nader said, calling the McCarthy era "chicken feed compared with what we have now."

"Seeking justice supersedes everything," he said, sounding more than ever like a candidate. "Without justice, we have nothing in this world. We can't have freedom without justice. That's what freedom is supposed to be."

[© tweed]

Nader is an asshole and an egotistical jerk wrapped in a moron.

[Gustaf]

The point of him running was to hopefully get 5% of the vote in order to get federal funding for 2004.  Guess what?  He didn't get it.  But we have 8 years of GWB thanks to him.

I thought the point was to force the Dems to take care of the environment, lean more towards him.

That's, of course, an interesting point. Do parties want power or influence?  You'd think the survival instinct is the most powerful of the two. I think parties are willing to sell their soul in exchange for their existence.  So, I'd say that the Greenies care more about having the party be a lasting entity than having the Dems absorb their ideas.

You're right about the parties, I was more thinking about Nader personally. But they don't really exist anyway, do they? The only thing they can really hope for is to get people to accept their ideas. Now Nader can say, "look, if you don't run as environamentalists, a green candidate will run and cist you the election". The greens couldn't accomplish much anyway, could they?

[NHPolitico]

The point of him running was to hopefully get 5% of the vote in order to get federal funding for 2004.  Guess what?  He didn't get it.  But we have 8 years of GWB thanks to him.

I thought the point was to force the Dems to take care of the environment, lean more towards him.

That's, of course, an interesting point. Do parties want power or influence?  You'd think the survival instinct is the most powerful of the two. I think parties are willing to sell their soul in exchange for their existence.  So, I'd say that the Greenies care more about having the party be a lasting entity than having the Dems absorb their ideas.

You're right about the parties, I was more thinking about Nader personally. But they don't really exist anyway, do they? The only thing they can really hope for is to get people to accept their ideas. Now Nader can say, "look, if you don't run as environamentalists, a green candidate will run and cist you the election". The greens couldn't accomplish much anyway, could they?

A party schism could happen. If the DLC Party was formed and the Green Party was "formed" out of the ashes of the Democrat Party, they could be a big voting bloc and influence races.

[jravnsbo]

The Green party already does influence a few House races.  PLus Dems continue to blame them instead of listening to them and embracing some of their concerns.