Why are Kerry and Edwards spoiling it for Nader?

[wtf]

:P

Still, I think it's something to think about, especially since the view points of the vast majority of people here predominantly align with Narder's more so than with Kerry's or Edwards. Don't get me wrong, I'm ABB all the way, but I think it's interesting that Narder gets criticized for being a spoiler because he can't possibly win, but the reason he can't possibly win is because the people who share his politics choose to vote for candidates other than him.

[foo_bar]

1. the vast majority of people here

are 4% of the electorate, tops.

[waterman]

2. How did you get that number?

[wtf]

3. I guess my point was..

we get what we deserve

[mr715]

6. Moderate Nation

Nader represents about 3-4% of the nation, according to his polling numbers in previous elections, as well as Greens campaigns across the nation.

This nation is basically dead center on most issues. Nader is a hardline leftist.

Whats interesting is John Kerry is one too, but because most people refuse to look at his real record, they assume hes a moderate.

There is a party establishment, and had Nader the support, he would have to run AS a democrat or a republican to avoid being a spoiler. In a two party system, plurality is as good as majority.

[lancdem]

9. But Nader isn't even a Green anymore

They don't want him. Kerry is a liberal for the most part, but that's not the stigma it used to be. I would call him a pragmatic liberal rather than an ideological one.

[Rebellious Republican]

18. Heres what Nader says about the Greens in his own words!

On December 22, Ralph Nader withdrew his name from consideration as a Green Party Presidential candidate.


But he went beyond that: He kissed the Greens goodbye.


And by so doing, he undercut one of the chief rationales for his Presidential run last time around, and he left himself without a coherent rationale for a brewed-about run this time as an independent.


In a letter to the Greens, Nader criticized "the maturity of the Greens as a political party" because it isn't sure of the wisdom of running any Presidential candidate in the face of the Bush onslaught. Nader termed this "a confused retreat."


He blamed the Greens for having "an uncertain compass regarding what should be a bedrock, genetic determination to run Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates all out-which is what, after all, national political parties-as opposed to movements-do."


And he faulted the Greens for not coming to a decision on this question until its convention in June.>
http://www.progressive.org/webex04/wx010404.html

[bearfartinthewoods]

23. he said the problem was the greens wouldn't decide

until their convention in june whether they would run a pres candidate. he says that was too late in the game to launch a campaign.

[newyawker99]

24. Hi mr715!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[LSdemocrat]

4. Then why didn't Nader run in the Democratic primaries?

If he really wanted to test his ideas against the other candidates, he would have run for the Democratic nomination. His choice to run as an independent proves he only cares about himself.

[emulatorloo]

19. stop making sense! n/t

[mmonk]

5. Yes they are spoiling it for him

because he will be exposed.

[lancdem]

7. The vast majority of people on DU do not agree

with Nader. I'm not aware of any who think Gore would've invaded Iraq, for example, especially since he was against the war from the beginning, something Ralph seems to have conveniently forgotten.

[David__77]

8. Spoiling it for Nader? Huh?

Are you saying that the Democratic Party is spoiling the electoral prospects of the Green Party?

OK... If that's true, then it's also true that the Greens are spoiling the chances of the Socialist Workers Party.

I think people simply realize that third-partyism has a place other than at this level. It simply is not effective in "leveraging" anything.

[hovsep76]

10. in defense of Nader

I admit I am personally moved by Nader's charisma in a way I could never be by Kerry or Bush. Unlike Nader, I think there are differences between the Dems and the GOP on important issues, but not as much as people think. Also unlike Nader, I think beating Bush in November is the most important factor in casting my vote. However, I am glad Nader is running for the same reasons I am glad so many Dems are running for the nomination. I think having a wide spectrum of views brought to the debate about what direction our country should be going in is critical to saving the population's declining civic interest. Enliving the debate will bring more young people to the polls and that will help Dems more than either Bush or Nader. Without the institutional support of the Green Party and with the higher stakes of this election, Nader will not even get close to the 2.5% of the vote he got in 2000. However, he will enliven the debate and make it a more interesting election. And his possible 1% of the vote should not swing the election, especially if Roy Moore or Pat Buchannan run on 3rd party platforms to the right of Bush. Being from NY, I may even cast my vote for Nader since the Dems will almost certainly win the state anyway (Gore carried it in 2000 by 60% to Bush's 35%). That way, the Dems will have some indication that Nader represents some people's views. I encourage you all to read this article in The Nation on the worst and the best possible outcomes of Nader's candidacy based on historical examples:
http://thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=1276

[newyawker99]

25. Hi hovsep76!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[JasonDeter]

11. Because they don't want to see more soldiers die.

A Nader run all the way to the end means bush stays in power and more of the same policy that has ended the lives of over 540+ soldiers and the injuring and maiming of 3000+ soldiers.

[zoeyfong]

17. In case you forgot, KERRY sent those soldiers to die. Minor detail.

[library_max]

20. Oh, not this lie again!

1) the IWR did not require the invasion of Iraq. Bush made that decision by himself.

2) if Kerry had voted against IWR, it wouldn't have changed a thing. A bill passes the same 76-24 as 77-23.

[JasonDeter]

21. His answer. I believe it.

For over a year now, Kerry has struggled to respond to that question. His answers have seemed vague, overly nuanced and evasive. On Thursday, seated before the sharpest knives in the journalistic drawer and facing the unconcealed outrage of Alterman, the Senator from Massachusetts explained why he did what he did. The comments below reflect Kerry's answers over the course of a long conversation and debate on the matter.

"This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career," Kerry said. "I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That's what I voted for."

"The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time," continued Kerry, "I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words "weapons inspectors" were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush's people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

Kerry completed his answer by leaning in close to Alterman, eyes blazing, and said, "Eric, if you truly believe that if I had been President, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldn't vote for me."

edit to provide link: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_1210b.html

[library_max]

12. "Something to think about"?

Well, maybe "think" is too strong a word . . .

[Monte Carlo]

13. It's the self-fulfilling expectations.

In these races today, with modern media, there are forces that tend to keep the front-runners in the front and the others in the back.

I think it's because people don't want to be suprised who wins a presidential contest - they want to know the winner well beforehand. It's a vicious circle, but it's OUR vicious circle.

[MUAD_DIB]

14. To coin a phrase of Ralph's directed towards Al Gore...

The only one that can spoil it for Nader is Nader.

[zoeyfong]

15. Yeah, i think kerry and edwards should drop out.

[JVS]

16. I agree. It would be for the good of the country.

[CWebster]

22. You are right of course

but the power brokers in the media and party establishment dictate what our best chances are, and if that is with the candidate who has the least to challenge Bush with, well, who are we to question?