If John Kerry is "electable" why the Nader fear?

[Capn Sunshine]

What's with this fear of Nader running?

Kerry's electable, dammit! Nader is no threat! Kerry is the overwhelming electable candidate , strongest in the history of the party!

Isn't he?

[janx]

1. So true, Cap'n. The irony of this situation is not be be believed.

But we saw it coming. I only lament that more people didn't see it as well.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. At least he'll have someone to blame.

[janx]

8. If he tries that, someone will have to give me drugs to

keep me from laughing 24 hours a day!

[Walt Starr]

2. To be honest

IT CRACKS ME UP!!!

[mdmc]

5. Dems laughed at Kucinich as unelectable

and then they blame Nader for Gore's 2000 loss, and will blame Nader + the Green candidate for destroying Kerry's 2004 chance.

Democrats, either court the middle, or court the left. The DLC proved that the left is not needed. Agree or disagree, but don't hate CHANGE.

[MoonAndSun]

3. I asked this same question in an earlier thread, what are they

so afraid of? Kerry is the "electable" one, why does Dean, who was not "electable" have to denounce Nader?

I truly believe that Nader will have no discernable impact on this election, so why are so many posters here freaking out?

[IndianaGreen]

4. Nominate Kucinich!

That will rob Nader of his issues!

[mdmc]

7. Nader chose to announce now, so that Kucinich's support

of the Democratic candidate would be overshadowed. My "pure" Green friends hate Sharpton and Kucinich, because they support the Democratic Party instead of "real change". They feel that all Dems SUCK, and that Sharpton and Kucinich are simply in the wrong party.

[LWolf]

54. That's not my experience.

There is a strong group of Greens working for the DK campaign here in so cal. I've met with them, talked with them, and it's true. They don't much like the democratic party, but they like Kucinich and are willing to vote dem for DK.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. And if Dean had won the nomination it would be Dean supporters

with their panties in a bunch because Nader was going to do what Nader was going to do.

For the record, I am not afraid of him. He is simply another lying politican like John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Howard Dean.



oops and I almost forgot..George W Bush. The guy that make the word LYING an understatement in every way shape and form.

[MoonAndSun]

10. Has someone won the nomination yet? I thought the primary

process was still ongoing?

[jonnyblitz]

12. the implication of the originator of this thread is that Kerry

is the nominee so NSMA was just following with that premise.

[MoonAndSun]

33. You're right, sorry for the misunderstanding.

:hi:

[Walt Starr]

11. Actually, if Dean were the nominee, Nader wouldn't be running

Nader said so weeks and weeks ago.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. Nader said Gore would have invaded Iraq and it needs to get worse

to get better.

I should hang my bra on Nader's every word. It certainly won't increase nor decrease the likelihood of my breasts sagging.

[Walt Starr]

15. I wasn't the one who claimed Dean supporters

would have their panties in a bunch over Nader running if Dean was the nominee.

:shrug:

Nader would not be running if Dean was the nominee. That's a fact.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. Nader is a fucking liar with a messianic complex. That is a fact.

[Walt Starr]

21. Don't get so apoplectic

Kerry is "electable" so Nader is not an issue.

[NewHampster]

19. So Nader isn't so dumb after all

Thanks Walt.

nader would have stayed out but is being a pain now because he figures Kerry hasn't a chance in hell.

[JHBowden]

20. Counterfactuals aren't facts.

What you're saying amounts to "I trust Ralph Nader and believe what he says."

Nader is running against Kucinich, who Nader earlier claimed he wouldn't run against if Kucinich was the nominee. So stop the lame excuses for the Republicans.

[diamondsoul]

62. Um- WHAT??

Please explain to me how Nader can be running against Kucinich in a Democratic Primary when Nader is an Independent candidate. By the way, I firmly believe Nader will drop out instantly if Kucinich is named the Nominee.

[Capn Sunshine]

46. Interesting imagery

Need any help with that :evilgrin:?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

60. Just doing my part to make your thread more participatory

Breasts matter...ask Janet and the Repubs! :D

[dansolo]

25. No we wouldn't

Because us Dean supporters would have a lot more confidence in our candidate than Kerry supporters do.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. Really? Then when the media was assassinating him, why did

he not effectively counter it?

[janx]

42. Part of the answer to your question lies in this article:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sweet/cst-edt-sweet19.html


That's only part of it.

[Capn Sunshine]

45. You miss the point NSMA. Nader would NOT run

If Dean got the nomination. That was his early on declaration.

[dkf]

61. Nader said that if Dean was the nominee he wouldn't run.

So Dean supporters would not have faced this situation.

[Old and In the Way]

14. It's not about Ralph and his candidacy.

It's all about the psuedo-Democrats who post support for him here.

[bigtree]

30. I look forward to that special day when this board is fully focused

on our Democratic nominee defeating Bush.

[Padraig18]

17. That what they keep telling us.

I fail to understand the fear, if that's actually true...

[Democat]

18. This is one of the most ridiculous "memes" of the Dean camp

Here is a funnier question, if Dean was "electable" they why did he lose to Kerry?

Kerry is electable - that means he can win, not that he absolutely will win.

Every vote and every dollar that goes to Nader instead of the Democrat helps Bush get elected.

Nader has no chance to do anything but help Bush.

If you support Nader, you help Bush.

[Padraig18]

22. Clue: Nader supporters wouldn't vote Democratic, any way.

Sorry, the initial question is perfectly valid.

[killbotfactory]

26. Because Kerry got tagged as more "electable"

Why? I don't know.

Nader has no chance to do anything. We might as well be freaking out about the libertarian candidate or Vermin Supreme.

[Capn Sunshine]

48. OMG NOT VERMIN SUPREME

the dem nominee is DOOOMED.

[dkf]

63. If Kerry hadn't used some real down dirty tricks in Iowa I don't think he

would have won. Do you know all the stuff he did? Bet you don't because you seem to have some respect for the guy.

I told my brother in law about all the stuff Kerry did and he was flabbergasted. In fact his eyes went huge.

[littlejoe]

23. Four years ago. Gore was electable. Ring a bell?

Or don't you pay attention to history?

[Walt Starr]

34. This isn't four years ago

Don't hold Dean supporters accountable for the failure of Kerry supporters to calculate in the Nader effect when making claims of electability.

[Capn Sunshine]

49. Eight years ago, Dole was electable

so in answer to your question, yes, I do.

[library_max]

24. This makes so much sense.

If out of ten runners we pick the one that's fastest to represent us in the big race, why not then chop his left foot off? He's still the fastest, right?

[creativelcro]

27. even the people who are most in denial know...

in the back of their delusions, that electability has nothing solid behind it. It's all based on people's mood. Any little bump can shake it.

[IndianaGreen]

28. Electability = support for the war in Iraq

Electability is a bullshit criteria concocted by Al From and the DLC. In a nutshell, electability meant support for the war in Iraq. Vote for the Iraq war resolution, the DLC said, because by 2004 Iraq will have been long forgotten and the economy will be the only issue on the table.

Some of the Democratic candidates followed the DLC advice for crass political expediency. One exception was Joe Lieberman. Joe wanted Saddam toppled on humanitarian grounds.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

31. Electability= demonstrating you can win your own party's votes

at a bare minimum.

[Walt Starr]

35. By that account, Dukakis and McGovern were "Electable"

:eyes:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

37. Dukakis was indeed ineffectual against the smear on him

[IndianaGreen]

36. Kerry won't win the antiwar vote!

In fact, Kerry is the weakest possible candidate the Democrats could possible nominate.

[JHBowden]

38. I guess you're right.

We better start getting used to George Bush, and Jebby in 2008.

[PAMod]

39. Actually the truth lies somewhere in between.

You can make a candidate attractive by selling his "electability". That is what got us where we apparently are. There wasn't a groundswell for Kerry until people were freaked out by Dean's alleged lack of "electability".

Irony kicks in should we learn that our apparent nominee, who was chosen for his electability, isn't electable at all.

Perhaps the Nader thing just makes us realize the irony sooner.

Nader is a nut, but if he still manages to siphon enough support away from the nominee to cause a second term for Bush, well, we were warned, weren't we? Were we not warned that the left wasn't going to sit idly by while the party is hijacked by the right?

We can all cry in our teacups, but if our nominee loses and Nader is to blame, we were warned, weren't we?

[janx]

40. This was certainly a warning:

"The way to beat George Bush is not to be like him."--Howard Dean

[IndianaGreen]

53. Edwards leads Bush in the CNN national polls

and Edwards doesn't have the baggage that Kerry has, such as his vote on NAFTA.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

58. Do you realized you just contradicted yourself in two posts?

IndianaGreen (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-22-04 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #31

36. Kerry won't win the antiwar vote!



IndianaGreen (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-22-04 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #39

53. Edwards leads Bush in the CNN national polls


and Edwards doesn't have the baggage that Kerry has, such as his vote on NAFTA.





so much for winning that anti-war vote :eyes:

[Eloriel]

64. But in Kerry's case, not without a lot of, um, "help"

from his friends in high places. And some skunks on the ground.

[MoonRiver]

32. For me it's not fear, but rage and indignation that here he goes again.

I know he's not stupid, so I have to assume he likes * in, all passionate spin to the contrary. Bottom line, I want that Puke exposed, cause he's toxic to this entire country. Fortunately, I think he's going to crash and burn long before the first GE debates begin. Can't wait.

[edzontar]

41. It is quite funny, actually. I think they are insecure

And know that Kerry coild easily blow it anyway.

Nader ups the ante a little bit and so they go crying to mama...

Well I for one have no use for the Nader campaign, but I sure am enjoyin' all this crybabyin' from the electability drones.

[CWebster]

43. Ha! Thee big question!

What a joke!

[Piperay]

44. Not fear but total disgust

that nader even thinks he can have another go at putting the chimp in for another 4 years, he's fucking unbelievable.

[boobooday]

47. We won the last time

Even with Nader in. A lot of the people who voted for him last time won't this time, and a lot of Democrats who didn't vote last time are going to vote this time.

W is going DOWN!

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[Capn Sunshine]

50. THAT is the attitude we need!!

It only took 50 replies for a dem to step up and say " I'm not afraid of Nader."

The rest of you, work on it , OK?

[shivaji]

51. Very good question! Kerry is so damn electable, Nader is no problem maan!

[library_max]

52. How dare you complain about me letting the air out of your tires!

If you'd bought a better car, it would run just fine anyway, so it's your fault, isn't it?

Ah, the "logic" of principled sabotage . . .

[GreenPartyVoter]

55. Good point, if your candidates are SO strong

why are you guys so scared?

[library_max]

56. If the house you built is so sturdy,

why do you complain when I go at it with a jackhammer and a blowtorch?

Always remember, it's your fault I'm trying to wreck what you built. Nothing is ever my fault.

[Kinkistyle]

67. This argument is a STRAWMAN.

Who says Kerry is SO strong that he can withstand anything? The country is divided in half. Bush has almost one half. The other half is more divided, so in order to beat Bush the opponent has to unite as many voters as he can in that half and coax over as many Bush voters as he can. Kerry has a strong chance of doing that and EDGING out a win.

When someone says their candidate is "strong" they are saying they will be able to get a little more than half the votes to win a close election. No one on the left, and I repeat NO ONE really believes that their candidate will sweep thru and take the entire nation by storm with 65% of the vote or something along those lines.

Nader has NO CHANCE of winning, and he will only serve to divide the anti-Bush votes. Thats why we are worried.

[LWolf]

57. Good question.

As I have said a few times on other threads, Nader is a non-issue in my book. His biggest role is a mass distractor from the real issues that should be dealt with as part of the democratic primary process.

So choose. Spend your time, energy, and focus in hysteria over the non-issue. Or spend it on real issues.

[Cuban_Liberal]

59. You don't suppose that maybe he's NOT, do you? God forbid!

"The Emperor has no clothes!" :evilgrin:

[Kinkistyle]

65. He is "electable" because he is a war hero ergo strong on security.

Because of the current environment we are living in, lots of folks now have "national security" as their top priority. Unfortunately many people think Military=Security and thus think Republicans=War=Military so Kerry has a good chance of taking that important advantage away and is therefore "electable". Nevertheless, it will still be a close election and Nader will only serve to hurt Kerry's chances, not Bush's.

For the record, Nader is completely unelectable. And he knows it.

[mitchum]

66. You seem to think that only Kerry supporters are disgusted...

by Nader's tactics. That's a goddamn lie that a few piss sports have been trumpeting over and over (but you already know that)