People are handling the Nader situation ALL WRONG!

[Meldread]

I'll never understand some people. Look folks (and I hope some party "leaders" are reading as well) Nader only becomes an issue if you make him an issue. If you are constantly shouting in rage that this guy might steal the election the media is going to throw tons of free press his way. Why? Because he is controversial. People will watch to listen to what Nader has to say even if they hate his guts. It's about ratings. It's about selling News Papers.

You are doing all the harm to yourself. Each time you mention his name. Each time you shout about how you hate him or how he's going to steal the election -- you give him creditability. You give him power that he doesn't have. You lift him up from third party status to equal status. You *MAKE* Nader an issue.

I support Ralph Nader's run for President, because I believe everyone should have the right to run for President. I believe in Democracy and giving people choices. Does that mean I am going to go out and vote for him? Of course not. Does that mean I am going to sit idly by and let him cost us votes in a General Election? Of course not. That is why I am posting this. To put it bluntly: YOU NEED TO SHUT YOUR MOUTH! The more you whine, bitch, and moan the bigger issue (and therefore NEWS STORY) you make this become. If you don't want Ralph to be in the news then don't talk about him. Pretend he doesn't exist.

Then you do your damnest to make people believe that your candidate is better than anyone else that they could possibly vote for. You don't mention Ralph's name. Mentioning his name gives him creditability.

This is like a John Edwards and John Kerry debate. If John Kerry debates John Edwards he elevates John Edwards to the same status -- he's telling everyone that "John Edwards is my equal". Kerry has no interest in doing that because it would hurt him. The same principle applies here. If you treat Nader like a non issue, and though you may watch him quietly and keep an eye on him, he will eventually sink to a non issue. The more you hype him up the more credibility you give him and yes the larger threat he will become.

That being said I have one suggestion for everyone on this board: SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT RALPH NADER! If a reporter asks about Ralph running for President shrug your shoulders, smile and simply say, "I believe in Democracy, and I believe that anyone who wants to run for President should get a chance. That's what makes this country so great." THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT HIM.

Thank you and have a pleasant day.

[HEyHEY]

1. That gives El Naderino too much room to play with

People NEED to know if they vote for him they are voting for Bush. That message MUST be driven home.

[Meldread]

5. And by doing that....

You elevate Ralph's status. You are giving him power he doesn't have.

You can accomplish the *SAME* thing without mentioning Ralph's name even ONCE. You can simply say: If you don't vote for <insert Democratic Nominee> X, Y, Z is going to happen and you don't want that do you? People will subconsciously understand that if they cast their vote for a third party candidate (or Bush) that they are not supporting the Democratic Candidate. It is universally accepted all across the United States that regardless what a third party does the election is going to come down between a Democrat and a Republican. Period. You can accomplish this without mentioning Nader's name.

In addition to this you come off as sounding "better" and less negative and hostile toward the left. People LIKE this. When do come off as hostile toward the left you encourage them to rebel. You are playing reverse psychology. By telling people "YOU CANNOT VOTE FOR NADER!" they are saying "Fuck you, I can and watch me!"

[HEyHEY]

8. I don't think they should say "you cannot vote for el Naderino"

But we need to let the know the very real consequences if they do.

[Meldread]

10. And as I said above...

You can inform them without mentioning his name. When you mention his name in a negative light you give him creditability. You cause those who might feel sympathetic toward him to rebel.

I can guarantee you this right now and stake my life on it because it is based off simple psychology of the human mind. The more of an issue you make Ralph the more people will focus on him. The more you attack Ralph the more people will become sympathetic toward him and might even begin to support him. The solution to both of these problems is to simply act like Ralph doesn't matter. Pretend that he is inconsequential.

I guarantee you if you act like Ralph doesn't matter to a Reporter their follow up question is going to be something along the lines of: "Are you afraid Ralph Nader is going to cost the Democrats the election this year?" Reporters are about ratings. That is what todays news is all about. If someone asks you that question just shrug, smile and say, "We are extremely busy <insert name>, we are focused on getting Bush out of the White House and putting a Democrat in it. We are just too focused on our goal to worry about anything else." In that statement you've just brushed Nader off into obscurity and didn't even mention his name once. That is the ultimate brush off.

In politics sometimes it's what you DON'T say that is more important than what you DO say.

[MurikanDemocrat]

2. Works for me. I think he IS irrelevant.

[EXE619K]

3. Kerry and Edwards should drop out!

They're hurting Ralph's chances in the General Election!

[mr_hat]

4. Oh yeah? So when did I ever say anything about Nader? >

And I bet there are scores like me who never said anything either!

[Meldread]

7. *hugs Mr_Hat*

You've been a good boy. :hug:

You get a cookie and a hug! :P

:hug:

[LoZoccolo]

6. That leaves them open to be lied to.

Hearing stuff like there's little difference between the two parties.

If there was little difference than how come people are paying Bush* $2000 donations to win the election? Wouldn't a Democratic victory be just as good for the rich donors?

[Meldread]

9. ..but what diffrence does it make...

If that message isn't reported over the National Media over and over? Sure that message might be played over the left wing media. However the people hearing it *ALREADY* believe it. Ralph is preaching to the choir. If he goes on Amy Goodman's Radio Show and says something like that 99% of her listeners ALREADY believe it.

You combat that by pointing out the differences between the Democratic Nominee and Bush. You don't combat that by saying "Ralph is a dirty filthy liar! ROT IN HELL RALPH!"

You simply smile and you say, "Well everyone is entitled to their personal opinions but <insert Dem Nom> believes X, Y, Z and Bush supports/believes X, Y, Z."

Attacking Ralph is a bad idea. When you attack Ralph you cause people to become sympathetic toward him. You cause people to pay attention to him. You don't want to do that, so you avoid mentioning his name whenever possible.

[Demonaut]

11. Nice piece, and very true

[OneBlueSky]

12. we can defeat Nader and drive him nuts at the same time . . .

just by ignoring him . . . it seems that he craves the spotlight, and the more attention we give him, the more he feels validated even if that attention is negative (there's no such thing as bad publicity) . . . what will make him crazy is if people just don't care . . . ignore him, and he'll either go away or self-destruct . . .

[Kinkistyle]

13. I agree with you.

Look, everyone has a right to run for president (if they are eligible). Do I wish Nader wasn't running? Yes, but I don't believe Nader will be much of a factor, and I think he is gonna get his votes from the folks who are left of the Dems (Socialists, Greens, Liberals, etc...) or those who don't come out to vote anyway. In any event, this year's election is different. If Nader was successful at one thing, it was opening people's eyes about what would happen under Neo-con rule. The Dems and Repugs are nowhere near "the same thing". Many 2000 Nader/Green voters realize this and will vote Dem.

[Meldread]

14. bump

More people need to see this.

[Meldread]

15. bump again