Nader and those that support him are enemies of the Democratic party!

[jpgpenn]

There is no other way to say it. What ever delusion you live with, you are in fact creating a negative atmosphere for our future candidate! You are assisting that band of criminals in our White House! You are take in some cases, much needed resources away from where it should be used most, atttacking *Bush. You are not a Democrat!

I have read some posts by a few of his supporters that Democrats some how fear Nader and his supporters.This is the farthest thing from the truth. Actually I look at Nader this time around as a laughing stock but a laughing stock that can add an unnecessary burden to our Democratic candidate.

[LynneSin]

1. a year or so ago I'd say you're starting a flame war

But now, in light of what Ralph has said and the Pickering/Pryor placements - I'll hand you some more matches!!!

[HFishbine]

2. How, pray tell,

Do Nader supporters drain "needed resources away... from attacking Bush?" Do they, or is your entire premise bullshit?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dhalgren]

11. Oh My Gods! Fishbine's been banned!

[HFishbine]

12. My, my

If you can't defend your rhetoric, just say so. No need to get snippy. You might further note that I simply posed a question and offered no "kind words" for Nader as you suggest.

You may now return to your mindless rant.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HFishbine]

21. Ommmmmmm. Reeeadinnngggg with aaaabsssorrrrbtionnnn

And I still don't get it.

How do Nader supporters drain "needed resources away... from attacking Bush?"

Maybe if you didn't make unsubstantiated claims, people wouldn't challenge your crapola.

[el_gato]

39. wow, so much for debating the issues

At least Nader doesn't wear a pink tutu.

[Forkboy]

36. YES SIR! RIGHT AWAY SIR!

another militant Clark supporter.

WTF is it with some of you? :eyes:

[Gman]

3. Nader supporters are the enemy

I've been saying it here for over a year now because any candidate that is on the ballot along with our Democratic Party candidate is there to win. Names are put on a ballot with the intent of winning even though they may not have much of a chance of winning. But that means they want to win and they want the Democratic nominee to lose just as the GOP wants the Democratic nominee to lose. That makes Nader no different than the GOP nominee and that makes Nader the enemy.

To hell with having a "choice" to express yourself. At this point you're either with us or against us. We are at war with the GOP and Nader gives aid and comfort to our enemy, the GOP. That makes Nader the enemy.

[Dhalgren]

4. Whatever you say to justify your anger at Ralph

the real thing you are asking is for voters to not have a choice. You aren't saying that you want to defeat him in an election, you're saying that you do not want voters to have the option. I can't go along with that. I don't support Nader, won't vote for him, but by gods people have the right to choose! Nader bashing is a waste of time. Hell, we're going to have enough trouble beating Bush without all this "hate Ralph" crap!

[sangh0]

59. Chicken Little

None has said people should have no choice. What was said is that people who support Nader are the enemies of those who support the Dems.

You see, we can choose to not like Nader and speak out against him, and you should stop trying to limit OUR choices

[HFishbine]

64. Short sighted

By decree, you declare a portion of the electorate your enemy. Seems petty and short-sighted to me. You can close the palace gates and prepare for war, or you can seek to recruit new allies. Just remember, if you choose the former, you are walling in your 36% of the electorate.

[sangh0]

108. I dont take advice from the enemy

.

[HFishbine]

168. Congratulations

You've fashoined a self-justifying ignorance.

[littlejoe]

77. In this particular year, at this particular time, with SO MUCH at stake,

I feel it is supremely (SCOTUS) important to limit our choice and UNITE!

I NEVER thought I would hear myself saying such things. They sound positively un-American!

The Republican party is organized and united. Don't kid yourself into believing they can't win in the fall.

Don't kid yourself into believing that voters will be able to see through Bush's smoke screen and realize what evil lurks in the White House.

There isn't one of us who doesn't know what that man and his backers are capable of.

[Dhalgren]

79. This isn't really about Nader

and I think most of us know it. It is about the Democratic party having to choose between the right/center and left. The party has chosen the center, but they don't want to lose the left. By setting up the "hated" Nader-demon, they get to bash the left with "shut up and vote like we tell you!" If the party goes too far to the right, it will lose the left; if the party goes too far to the left, it loses the center. We don't brow beat the center for choosing Bush if the party goes too far left, but we sure brow beat the left when the party has gone too far right. I think that the Democrats are on the verge of an historic loss - not of the Nov. election (though who knows), but of any political power at all in the future. If you abandon your base, you'd better have another one lined up.

[Walt Starr]

84. I'd give you a cigar for that one

Spot on!

[sangh0]

110. More Chicken-Little-ism

No has said "Shut up and vote like we tell you!"

And BTW, you are NOT "the base". Funny how the minority on the left think they have a greater claim to be the Democratic Party's "base" than the more than 20 million African-Americans, 90%+ of whom vote for the Democrat.

[Dhalgren]

116. Well, if we are such an unimportant "fringe" then

why should anyone care for whom we vote? And it is true that African Americans do make up a substantial part of the Democatic base - and are just as usually taken for granted by the party. This unwillingness to acknowledge the concerns and the voting power of the left by some elements of the party is mind-numbing. Tell the left to take a hike - that's the recipe for victory in November!

Oh (and on edit), there is no "chicken-littleism" at all in my posts. I assume you are saying that I am saying that the "sky is falling" somehow. Nor me, I just think it is stupid to try and brow beat leftists into submission. Talk about shared ideals, talk about compromise towards some of their concerns, but "shut up and vote as you're told!" won't get us anywhere.

[sangh0]

118. It's dishonest to put words in my mouth.

I never used the word "fringe" and no one has told the left "to take a hike"

Let me know when you return to reality

[Dhalgren]

127. You haven't really "said" anything.

You accused me of suffering from "chicken-little-ism" - whatever that is. And said that the Left was not the base of the party. O.k. My assumption was that these statements had something to do with the "fear" expressed by many that Nader was going to somehow hurt the Dems chances in November. I don't think he really will, but then I don't succumb too readily to scare tactics. The real fear being expressed is the fear of losing the Left within the party. That is a choice that the party has made and they now have to live with it. This abandonment of the left probably won't hurt the Dems in November, but it will in the future. The left may not be a huge part of the base of the party, but it will be missed.

[sangh0]

128. You don't know who Chicken Little was?

Chicken Little is known for exagerrating problems, or just flat-out making them up. Kind of like your "People are saying I should shut up!"

This abandonment of the left probably won't hurt the Dems in November, but it will in the future

Yes, we've been hearing that for years, and it still hasn't come true.

[Dhalgren]

133. Did pretty well in 2000 and 2002, did ya'?

I know who Chiken Little is, it refers to someone who jumps to erroneous conclusions and acts upon it to the detriment of others. As far as your assumption that the left will stay with the party regardless of how they are treated (you did mean this with your observation that the left has been saying for years they would leave, but haven't?) I suppose we will have to wait and see. I personally know many who say they will never vote Dem again after November. You may not believe them, but I do. And in an ironic sort of way your having no confidence in the left ever actually leaving the party is like playing "chicken" with us. So it comes around in a circle, uhn?

[sangh0]

145. Irrelevant

I don't why know why you raised 2000 and 2002, since you didn't give any explanation as to why it's relevant to this discussion. However, the Dems did win in 2000.

And no one is playing chicken aside from those who constantly threaten to leave the party. Meanwhile, the Dems are attracting more and more votes every year. This years primaries are seeing turnout doubled and even tripled.

[Dhalgren]

149. So, you would agree that there should be no tears shed if all

of the leftist went to the polls and voted for Nader or just stayed home? What I can't understand is if the leftists are ineffectual or unimportant, why do you care what they do?

[sangh0]

150. There would be imaginary tears

for the imaginary leftists imaginarily voting for Nader.

What I can't understand is if the leftists are ineffectual or unimportant, why do you care what they do?

Not all leftists are ineffectual and unimportant. Just the ones who vote third-party in a close and important election

[Iverson]

151. aha

So logically, the thing to do is insult and berate those leftists until they do what you want.

Suddenly, the last few days around here make more sense.

[sangh0]

153. Ridicule is valid and useful

Some ideas deserve to be ridiculed. This is one.

And I have no expectation that the ridicule will cause them to vote Dem. In fact, I hope it doesnt. If it did, then who would we ridicule?

[Iverson]

154. no

Intellectually, ridicule is bankrupt.

"And I have no expectation that the ridicule will cause them to vote Dem. In fact, I hope it doesnt. If it did, then who would we ridicule?"

If you have to be told, then the answer isn't worth it.

Have a bipartisan day.

[library_max]

155. Ridicule is intellectually bankrupt?

/Insert obvious reference to your own modus operandi here./

[sangh0]

157. So are campaigns.

Big surprise, huh?

[Tyler Durden]

5. ANY candidate except the Democratic Party Nominee is the Enemy

And that goes DOUBLE for their supporters.

Welcome to the war. I'm a Socialist, and if the last four years is evidence, Satan is president and the only exorcist going will be the Democratic Party Nominee.

Exorcise the Dark One or Worship Him. There's no third choice, and if you think so, it's time to go somewhere else. This is not the time for waffling on support.

Sorry.

[Dhalgren]

8. Wow! That's some deep "socialist" sentiment there!

.

[Tyler Durden]

31. Yes, it is.

The true Socialist realises that change WILL occur, and that it will be revolutionary, whether or not it is violent.

Incremental Change is perfectly acceptable. The true Socialist takes the long view.

A Communist would disagree, but I'm not a Communist.

[Forkboy]

7. yes yes yes

we friggin know already :eyes:

[jpgpenn]

10. and you will continue to "friggin know"!

[HFishbine]

16. Good luck with your

36% (You are, of course, well aware of what that represents.)

[Forkboy]

37. Thanks for the warning

I look forward to more thrilling posts from you!

[Walt Starr]

9. But Kerry is Electable so Nader is meaningless

Or was that talk about electability just bullshit?

[Dhalgren]

13. Didn't you know? The new Democratic principle is

"give the people no choice!" It's a great, winning slogan!

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

22. I've been a Democrat my enitre voting life

The Democratic Party sucks.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

27. I've been on DU since day one which is over three years ago

And I'm staying, brownshirt tactics from December of 2003 DUers notwithstanding.

BTW, I'll be signing the petition to put Nader on the ballot in Illinois when I'm approached to sign it, just because of the crap on DU. I'll still vote for The Ham Sandwich (D), but I'll sign the petition to add the interest.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

40. I dont get it

could you repeat it again?

[Tinoire]

86. Where the fuck have you been for 4 years?

Where was your sense of democracy then? Did you help make this board what it is? Did you contribute to a single discussion about why the BFEE was so horrible and witness the complicity of certain Democrats with the Republicans?

Were you on this Democratic board representing your "democratic" ideas and taking the Democatic enablers to task? Or were you quiet because they were representing you?

This board is what we made it- a progressive board. Get it?

Just love the people who didn't join the paraded until a few months ago and are now telling others to leave :eyes:

[jpgpenn]

14. No but your opinion that Nader is "meaningless", is!

any vote taken away from our Democratic candidate is not "meaningless"!

[Dhalgren]

15. "No choice in '04!" It's the only way to win!

[Walt Starr]

24. You're making an assumption

You assume that The Ham Sandiwch (D) is entitled to any votes Nader may get.

The Ham Sandwich 9D) is getting my vote this year, but this is absolutely 100% the last time ANY ham sandwich with a (D) after it's name will get my vote by default, mostly due to the crap I';ve seen this past year.

[bowens43]

28. What makes you think that a vote for Nader is taken

from the Democratic candidate? Democrats , for the most part, despise Nader. When you start threads like this one , you make us all look like uninformed children. Not only is your opinion meaningless, it's harmful to the Democratic nominees campaign.

[littlejoe]

83. Alright walt, Once and For All, if you don't think John Kerry is

electable, then who, in your learned, enlightened opinion is?

[Walt Starr]

120. Nobody left in the field is

And that's my honest opinion. I believe that we will have our asses handed to us on November 2nd. I believe the party has guaranteed that.

[Iverson]

18. Let's get a clarification.

Do you mean "supporters," or do you mean those who denounce him with insufficient zeal?

[JVS]

126. I believe it is the latter

[YNGW]

19. Nader Voters

>Actually I look at Nader this time around as a laughing stock but a laughing stock that can add an unnecessary burden to our Democratic candidate.

Either he's a laughing stock not worth consideration or he's not. Decide.

These people who continually say "Nader isn't a factor" but then treat him like he is don't project confidence in their own candidate. Nader voters are Nader voters. Leave them alone.

[jpgpenn]

23. Hey Socrates!

ANY vote taken away from the Democratic candidate is something to be concerned about!

[Walt Starr]

25. Assumptions

If somebody chooses to vote Nader, The Ham Sandwich (D) is not entitled to the vote.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HFishbine]

32. Man

Sure makes me glad Clark pooped out.

[Walt Starr]

33. The Ham Sandiwch (D) goes back to spring of 2002

Long Time DUers know and understand this is a term of endearment.

I've been a registered Democrat for more than two decades and have sought public office twice as a Democratic Candidate in a general election.

Demanding that I leave because you question my Democratic credentials is the most hilarious thing I've seen on DU in the past three years.

[littlejoe]

93. Term of endearment? I don't think so. Not the disparaging way

that you use it, and your stubborn refusal to quit, when people protest your useage of it.

The other day, you got upset when someone called Dennis Kucinich a disparaging name. Is that not being hypocritical, walt.

Many of us would appreciate it if you and others would show some respect for all candidates, and their supporters.

[Dhalgren]

113. Have you ever heard the term "Yellow Dog Democrat"?

The "Ham Sandwich" is used in much the same way. "I'd vote for a yellow dog if he were a Democrat" is not a disparagement. By referring to the eventual Dem candidate as the "Ham Sandwich" he is saying that the two "front runners" are not his choice, but hey, even a ham sandwich...

[Walt Starr]

121. Thank you

The appelation goes back nearly two years on DU, too.

[Forkboy]

43. Someone accidently slipped you regular coffee

instead of decaf this morning apparently. :crazy:

[Brucey]

35. All the comments about "choice" are nonsense.

Suppose Kerry gets the Dem nomination. Suppose Dean, Edwards, Clark, and Kucinich then all run as independents to give people a "choice." Of course, that is nutty in the US system. We do not have proportional representation. We do not have a parliamentary system. It is winner TAKE ALL! The "choices" need to be made in the primaries and caucuses. A third party candidate in the US system (which sucks, in my opinion) is a waste... typically results in a "victory" by someone who gets less than a majority. We should at least have runoff elections. But given the system we have, Nader should join the Dems and work toward his agenda. That way (given our system) he would have the most influence. The way he is doing it, yes, is hurting Dems.

[dansolo]

52. Then the Dems should appeal to the people who don't vote

I don't know why this point needs to be raised over and over. The number of elibible voters who DO NOT VOTE far outweighs the number of voters who will vote for Nader. The idea seems to be that it is easier to convince a person who is already intending to vote to vote for your guy (or conversely, to vote against the other guy) than it is to convince a person who is not normally inclined to vote to get out and vote. This is laziness on the part of politicians, nothing more.

[library_max]

115. People who don't vote don't vote.

If you can get progressive who don't vote to vote for the Democratic nominee, go do it. If you expect the nominee to do it by taking exciting stands on red-meat issues, remember that for every left non-voter who is inspired to vote for him there'll be a right non-voter who is inspired to vote against him, plus the swing voters he'll alienate.

[YNGW]

34. Hey Plato

How can it be taken away if it was never going to be given in the first place? There are Green Party voters and other progressives on this site who have always been committed to their party. Haven't I heard Kucinich supporters say that if everyone who keeps saying they like DK but thought he was unelectable would vote for him he would win? Right or wrong, maybe Nader people feel the same way.

Doesn't ABB mean "Anybody But Bush"? Wouldn't a vote for Nader still be a vote for anybody but bush?

[Brucey]

41. No.

Because Nader has no chance of winning. The US system is winner take all. What if Edwards, Clark, Dean, and Kucinich all ran as independents, all split the vote, and Bush* won with 38% of the vote? Would that seem reasonable to you because everyone got to vote for whom they wanted? They would all end up with nothing! We do not have a parliamentary system (I wish we did). ABB doesn't refer to voting, it refers to winning.

[YNGW]

44. That may be the case.

But, I for one am not going to condemn people for voting Nader or whoever they want. I see nothing positive coming from it. It won't change their minds and it shifts focus off of other things.

Will people here continue to do so? Sure. It's always comforting to have a scapegoat. Beats thinking, I guess.

[Nadienne]

29. "If you're not with us, you're against us"

Right?

[Tyler Durden]

38. When it comes to Bush...

and his Cheney/Pickering/Rove/Carlyle cabal, RIGHT. In Spades.

If the only choices you are offered to drink are ditch drainage or gasoline, I leave the choice to you, but don't expect me to support your choice.

[arwalden]

42. Mathematically...and electorally that is correct.

Any vote that does not directly benefit the Democratic nominee benefits the criminal Bush*.

-- Allen

[HFishbine]

45. Is that true

Which vote benefits Bush? The independent who votes for Nader or the democrat who votes for Bush? With 11% of dems having voted for Bush in 2000, this anger at Nader is misplaced.

[Forkboy]

48. Dont point things like that out

It ruins people's self righteous anti-Nader wankfests.

[arwalden]

51. No Shit? Really? A Vote FOR BUSH Will Benefit Bush. Wow!

My anger is not with Nader it is with the misguided voters who still cling to the belief that a 3rd party candidate can actually win (if they just believe hard enough) and who cannot comprehend that any vote which does not directly benefit the Democratic candidate will have the net effect of benefitting the criminal Bush*. This is not rocket science.

-- Allen

[Forkboy]

56. You're doing a great job of showing them the error of their ways!

"the beatings will continue until morale improves"

[arwalden]

60. Thank You!

They understand the "error of their ways" (as you say). They don't need me to point it out to them. At this late stage, their's is an exercise in self-righteousness and sanctimonious punishment of those who do not agree with their opinions of what the Democratic party should be.

All evidence indicates that they are more concerned with infighting-payback than the greater good of removing the criminal Bush*. I cannot be held accountable for their morale. Nor can I be responsible for their tactical errors that do nothing to promote their progressive goals, and instead move them backward, and benefit the criminal Bush*.

Go figure.

-- Allen

[Forkboy]

62. What if they really dont understand the error of their ways?

I agree the older ones should know,but what about the younger ones,just into politics and charged up to change things? How is your approach going to convince them they should vote for a Dem instead?

[arwalden]

80. I Am Powerless. I Concede Defeat To The Great Satan: Naive Idealism

I have no power and no words to overcome that enemy.

As any parent will attest to... sometimes they just have to make those mistakes and learn from them. The up-n-adam energy and the piss-n-vinegar of which they are so full also prevents them from listening to and accepting any words of wisdom from anyone who is more experienced.

And, that's the name of that tune.

-- Allen

P.S. If you want to give it a try, then feel free. Good luck.

[Forkboy]

103. I have given it a try

and it worked.Try it.

[arwalden]

107. I Have. Repeatedly. And It Failed... Repeatedly.

Feel free to continue your tutoring efforts. Congratulations and continued good luck to you. It's beyond my abilities.

-- Allen

[Forkboy]

114. You've honestly tried being nice to them?

I've seen your posts in the meeting room.You can be very persuasive.I think you can do it.If not,there's no harm in trying again and again if it might help us win right?

[arwalden]

144. No... They Deserve Nothing More From Me

I have no personal or political desire to cajole and validate their petty insecurities and paranoia. But, as I said... if that's your strong point and you're up to the challenge... then good-on-ya.

I'm afraid that I have lost my "youthful idealism" and I accept the fact that some people cannot change, some people do not want to change. I can be included in the list of folks who do not harbor unrealistically hopeful expectations.

-- Allen

P.S. Let me know when you've figured out who is who and which is which. (You know... the ones who are deliberately belligerent and the ones who simply don't know better and are merely blinded by their naivety, idealism, and unrealistic expectations.)

P.P.S. You do know that many of the pubescent provocateurs are UNABLE TO VOTE, yes?

[Forkboy]

165. You do a disservice to the Party then

but your self-righteousness will surely make up for the lack of effort :eyes:

[HFishbine]

67. But in all honesty

isn't it really your view that is self-righteous and sanctimoneous -- the "you're with us or your against us mentality?"

What "evidence" indicates, as you suggest, that anybody is more interested in infighting? There hasn't even been an effort on behalf of the dem frontrunners to reach out to the anti-war crowd or the progressive independents. Shouldn't we offer an olive branch first before we jump to conclusions about people's motives? Seriously, are the dems so entrenched with their 36% that there can be no effort to broaden appeal? Shouldn't a minimal effort be made first, at the very least, before we start writing off chunks of the electorate?

[arwalden]

72. So their issue is with the dem frontrunners and not their supporters...

as you've indicated. Nothing I say will matter. They should take their concerns to the candidates as I cannot presume to speak for the frontrunner candidate that they loathe more than having the criminal Bush* in charge.

It's beyond the scope of my abilities.

-- Allen

[HFishbine]

82. Ha! Too true.

Well, in that regard, you are closer to the truth. Much of what we discuss here is beyond the scope of our abilities -- including getting Nader to drop out of the race.

But, in as much as one person can make a difference, all I'm suggesting is that you be prepared to make your case. Rather than flipping the bird to Nader supporters (as some have bragged about here), try starting a conversation; something like, "You know, I really like what Nader has to say about _____. My candidate agrees. He too thinks _____." It's about recruitng instead of alienating.

That's what we can do. What the candidates must do, we'll have to leave to them.

[library_max]

99. This is the logic of the tantrum.

If I fuss and break things and make Mommy and Daddy miserable, maybe next time they'll give me what I want.

Except that Mommy and Daddy are smart enough to know that rewarding a tantrum just encourages more tantrums. They're far more inclined to offer punishments than candy.

[Dhalgren]

130. Maybe it's time to start treating voters and potential voters

like adults to adults, rather than like a parent to an unrulely child.

[library_max]

138. Treat 'em as they act, that's what I say.

Adults throw tantrums all the time, they just do it differently than children. Terrorism is an example of an adult tantrum. The logic remains the same - reward the tantrum if and only if you want more tantrums.

If your voters and potential voters want to get on board and help, fine. If they want to push for their programs and their issues from inside the party, fine. If they help us get elected, they'll be remembered and appreciated in proportion. If the progressives can actually find the Silent Progressive Majority and get them to the ballot boxes to vote in not only the nominee but a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, their reward from the administration they created will be considerable. But they can't expect it in the campaign, and anyway what good are campaign promises? Has Bush been a "compassionate conservative," a "uniter not a divider"?

If they want to work against us and try to defeat us, either they'll succeed or they'll fail. If they fail, they'll have proved that we don't need them. If they succeed, they will earn our hatred, not our accommodation. I am indebted to The Magistrate for this elegant parsing of the situation.

[Dhalgren]

143. It's just the same ol' "Shut up and vote like you're told" bit.

.

[sangh0]

148. Sour grapes make bitter whines

No one has said "Shut up and vote like you're told"

Get a grip

[library_max]

152. Well, now, there's an adult response.

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[Walt Starr]

53. Precisely

Far more Democrats voted for Bush in 2000 than voted for Nader.

Unfortunately, that removes the scapegoat and human nature requires a scapegoat.

[library_max]

58. Obviously, the answer is "both"

So tell you what - we'll try to talk Nader out of running and you go try to talk President Bush out of running. Good luck with that.

[HFishbine]

61. I'm afraid a strategy

of trying to talk anybody out of running is futile. What's wrong with trying to give people a reason to vote for the dem nominee instead?

[Walt Starr]

65. There you go

Especially when so many Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000 are so pissed at Bush in 2004.

Then, if you can get some non-voters to register and vote for The Ham Sandwich (D), we absolutely win. Who gives a fuck about Nader if we do this thing right?

[library_max]

70. Because he's a spoiler.

He succeeded as well in 2000 as Osama did on 9/11. Are we happy with the idea of Al Qaeda flying airplanes in American airspace? No? Then why should we be happy with the idea of Nader running for president, just because he might not have the same success he had last time?

[Walt Starr]

76. I, for one, would willingly sign a petition to get Nader on the ballot

The more the merrier. We live in a democratic republic and I support democracy and democratic principles.

Bush was more of a spoiler because he got nearly four times as many Democrats to vote for him in 2000 than NAder did.

[Deansspecialinterest]

91. what an offensive argument

How far away from the cities targeted on 9/11 do you live, by the way? Nice to see the right wing doesn't have a monopoly on exploiting those events for their own political sloganeering.

[WitchWay]

162. strange, yet FAMILIAR metaphor

spoiler = terrorist
Do you work for the Department of (re)Education?
Nader/Osama -- kind of like Dean/Osama attack ad. Kind of strangely familiar, huh?

[library_max]

68. What do you mean "a reason to vote for the dem nominee"?

The Supreme Court, the environment, the economy, the budget, foreign policy, education, civil liberties - these aren't enough reasons?

They need to look at www.johnkerry.com and www.georgewbush.com and see if they don't notice some important differences on the issues. They need to look at Bush's three years in the White House and reflect whether the dem nominee wouldn't have done things differently.

What more "reason" do you want?

[HFishbine]

74. I'm not the one to ask

I voted for Gore in 2000. I'm simply suggesting that there is nothing wrong with listening to Nader or other voters who are currently not on board with the dems to see what we can do to bring them under the tent. Now should be a time for dialoge, not brow-beating and finger-pointing.

[library_max]

94. Nice duck.

Beats defending the indefensible, doesn't it?

[HFishbine]

100. It's just pragmatism

You see clear reasons for voting for John Kerry. I'm close to being there with you. Some other people obviously aren't there yet. Your implication that there is enough reason and people just don't see it yet may be correct. It may also be that a few more bones may have to be thrown to the left. Either way, the fact remains, that we get nowhere by vilifying people because they don't agree with us at this moment.

As some wise DU poster is fond of saying, politics is the art of addition, not subtraction.

[library_max]

112. The trouble with throwing bones

in the campaign is that it can cost us the election. Any stand that energizes the left will also energize the right (to vote against it) and risks alienating portions of the middle. Case in point, suppose Kerry were to change his mind and publicly support same-sex marriage. I'm sure lots of progressive non-voters or Nader voters could be persuaded to vote for him. But a lot of religious and right-wing non-voters would also be motivated to vote against him, and we'd lose hundreds of thousands of swing voters.

There's a fine line between vilifying people and pointed out that they made and are making a mistake. Maybe you don't change people's minds by telling them they're wrong, but you certainly don't change people's minds by telling them they're right.

[Dhalgren]

There is the problem in a nutshell!

Win the center, lose the left; win the left, lose the center. If the left goes, at least they won't vote FOR Bush, if the center goes they will vote for Bush. So let the left go and suck up to the center, because the Democrats want all those almost republican votes more than they want the votes of people who will not vote for Bush, anyway. This seems very clear.

[library_max]

140. Yup, and the only way to reverse it

is for the left to vote Democratic loyally enough that we can count on winning without courting those "almost Republican votes."

[Guaranteed]

164. But by your logic, that same non-voter not voting for Bush

benefits the Dem nominee, right?

[MadHound]

47. Right! Just further evidence that the two party/same corporate master mode

Is in full swing! Hell, now they're even passing their talking points back and forth, cribbing each other's notes:eyes:

And by the by, for all of you Nader Haters out there, even Al From has admitted that Gore would have done worse in the '00 if Nader hadn't been in the race, in the DLC house magazine Blueprint(1/24/01): "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voter how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race" <http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=1&kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919>, on page three of the article.

So hey, I guess that at least in Florida, if not the country, Nader HELPED the Democratic Party, pulling off more votes from the Republicans than the Democrats. Gee, isn't that ironic?

[corporatewhore]

63. That deserves a thread of its own

[MadHound]

66. Oh, I've been passing it around for the past couple of days

And it is always fun to watch the responses, or better yet the lack thereof. Facts, now ain't it a bitch when they slap you in the face and shut you up?;)

I might just go ahead and put it into a thread, but I'm afraid it would drop like a rock. Too many people around here don't like facing reality, and what are they going to do when they don't have Nader and the Greens to beat on anymore?

[library_max]

71. Exit polls aren't "facts"

Much less one person's interpretation of some exit polls.

But if you do believe in exit polls, you must acknowledge that more than two out of three Nader voters named Gore as their second choice (with "neither candidate" also being an option). So Nader votes were taken away from Gore, in Florida and elsewhere.

[MadHound]

89. LOL, you finally got around to answering me from yesterday!

I was wondering when you would.

Face it, when From is making these kind of statements, they are not off the cuff, and they are quite well researched. I know this, I've been around the Democratic party for thirty plus years, have helped out in a lot of ways and I have seen how they operate. This isn't interpretation, this is fact. Extrapolating from exit polls is a tried and true method of measuring the publics' mood. I mean come on, how many times was the VNS calling the races correctly? Yeah, that's right, all of them excepting the selection in '00. Over fifty years of being correct. And besides the VNS there are several excellent other polling companies out there. Trust me, From and the DLC use many of them.

But hey, if you've got proof otherwise, I would love to see it. But don't expect me to believe whatever you say without you backing yourself up. I've given you the proof of my assertion, let's see yours.

[library_max]

122. From The Jungle Book, Rudyard Kipling.

"The Bandar-log howled with triumph and scuffled away to the upper branches where Bagheera dared not follow, shouting: 'He has noticed us! Bagheera has noticed us. All the Jungle-People admire us for our skill and cunning.'"

[Odallas]

46. This is fine diplomacy

Most Nader supporters understand what is at stake in 2004. We want to revoke bUSHCORP's charter as much as anyone. However, we also see the need for Ralph Nader's voice to be heard, to hear a Democratic candidate speak honestly to the issues he brings to the process. On some level, most Nader supporters would call themselves Democrats (why do you think I visit this site?) and the hostile DU'rs are making a mistake trying to repel us from this forum. If you need someones cooperation, don't ask by smacking them in the face. We have 8 months to sort this out and we all can do better.

[Forkboy]

49. they dont want your cooporation

just your vote :)

[HFishbine]

50. Amen brother, amen!

I'm not a Nader supporter, but getting flamed like one just because I won't vilify Nader.

The points you make are all too true. Why some are afraid of broadening the democratic appeal is beyond me. It's as if some people think they can win in November with only the 36% of the electorate that is democratic.

Hopefully our candidate (whoever he may be) will not have the same attitude as some of the short-sighted posters here. I suspect you will indeed see an honest attempt at cooperation, and I hope you won't allow the vitrol of a few scared democrats to influence your decision.

[Walt Starr]

55. You are not sufficiently anti-Nader!!!!!!

On your knees and beg to remain on DU!!!!

/sarcasm

[Odallas]

57. I don't wither in the face of emboldened RW repubs

so a few "worried" Democrats don't bother me. I'm confident we will reach some level of cooperation.

[HFishbine]

69. Ding!

Nader-haters, are you listening?

[YNGW]

96. Exactly

You know, if in 2008 it's close again and a "Nader" type candidate emerges, these same people will be calling for him/her not to run. So if the country remains split, how long until people who don't feel a connection to either party have a voice and a choice?

Currently, we have people saying "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush". Four years from now should Kerry's be prez it'll be "A vote for 3rd party candidate X is a vote for the Repug. You can't vote for candidate X because it's too close."

When will it end? Will it end anytime soon? And will people continually year after year after year after year wait around and keep holding their nose and vote for people that are the "lesser of two evils" in their eyes?

I say: No, they won't.

[WillyT]

54. Ooo, Ooo, That Smell...Can't Ya Smell That Smell !!!

Desperate
Delusional
Destructive

[kodi]

73. Nader talked "about leading the Greens into a 'death struggle' with Dems

Nader talked "about leading the Greens into a 'death struggle' with the Democratic party.

anyone in a death struggle with me is not acting in my best interests. they would be my enemies.

"in a more recent interview with David Moberg in the socialist paper In These Times, Nader made it clear that his real mission is to destroy and then replace the Democratic party altogether.

"According to Moberg, Nader talked "about leading the Greens into a 'death struggle' with the Democratic party to determine which will be the majority party." Nader further and shockingly explained that he hopes in the future to run Green party candidates around the country, including against such progressive Democrats as Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, and Representative Henry Waxman of California. "I hate to use military analogies," Nader said, "but this is war on the two parties."

"That's what Nader wants.


http://www.mikehersh.com/Why_did_Nader_help_Bush.shtml

[Forkboy]

78. What if they gave a death struggle and no one showed up?

:shrug:

[mgc1961]

75. "You're either....

....with us or against us." What next? Are you going to call him an "evildoer?" Or a "hater of freedom" because he chooses to exercise his freedom?

Where have I heard that before?

[Deansspecialinterest]

81. Bush is a monster and Nader is insignificant, but...

I want Bush out and I won't be voting for Nader, but when we start making enemies lists and trying to win votes by bullying, name calling, loyalty oaths, and intimidation, it becomes clear the extent to which Bush and his goon squad have already won.

[HFishbine]

88. Very wise

Welcome to DU!

[edzontar]

85. Have you made up an "enemies" list yet?

In the "real" world, what we probably have right now are some younger people who might be tempted to vote for Nader, and who need to be persuaded--rationally--that this is a bad idea.

Proclaiming people enemies and carrying on like a petulant fascist is not going to get you anywhere.

That ism if you actually care about winning the election.

[dad]

87. WTF

How in the hell do my pro-Nader posts get banned by the moderators as "flame bait", yet people are allowed to post this type of garbage all day?

[edzontar]

92. I think we know the answer...soon they will all be banned.

nt

[MadHound]

97. You're not alone Canigeta

Stealth censureship is up all over the board. Soon we must all march in lockstep or be banished. And this is DEMOCRATIC Underground:eyes:

[GreenPartyVoter]

90. Enemies of the Democratic party but friends of democracy in general

Now I am all for bypassing Ralph this time and voting Dem just to get $hrub out.

But overall I support candidates from outside the big two parties running, and I hope that concern over spoiler effects will hasten the election reform that this nation so badly needs.

[Nazgul35]

101. Perhaps we should go beyond one dimensional thinking...

and attach a little reasoned argument here...

First, one must define the actors institutional rules and context to forward an argument that doesn't descend into "you suck" "no...you suck" debate we are use to seeing over at Freeperland....

1) The actor we are interested in discussing here is the voter. How do voters make the decision to vote?

Glad you asked! The are voters who possess differing levels of information and different preference orderings when it comes to candidate choice.

Voters who are under informed can be presented with information in order to sway individuals toward your viewpoint....I believe that anyone would have a hard time arguing that the people who frequent DU are under informed with regards to the American political system...at least compared to the average American...so arguments that proceed from the point of assumption that people on this site just don't get it or are somehow impaired is specious at best...

As to preference ordering, voter one may believe that terrorism is the most important issue while voters two believes it is the economy. They may agree on every other issue in the campaign, but their decision of what is most important can lead to completely different decisions in candidates.

The level of commitment to their preferences can also vary....voter one may be only slightly more concerned about terrorism than his number two preference while voter two cares about nothing else than the economy...

2) The Institutional rules we operate under is plurality electoral laws. First-past-the-post creates strategic voting amongst the voters, causing them to abandon their more favored choice for a slightly less attractive candidate, if the alternative is a worse choice. Our electoral college is designed to heighten the performance of a two party system, making it almost impossible for a third party to emerge and remain viable for long periods of time...

But strategic voting is not universal, there are several situations where it can break down.

a) When the worse alternative has no way of being defeated...imagine a state where George Bush is leading by 68% in the polls switching from your desired choice to the second place candidate will not affect the final outcome....strategic voting will only matter in states where switching your vote will result in giving the second placed candidate the win...conversely, states that the Dem is winning in will also discourage strategic voting...in both examples, changing your vote will not affect the final outcome...

b) When you have concentration of supporters in a district. Consider the lack of strategic voting for George Wallace, whereas Anderson, Perot and Nader all experienced vote loss on election day due to strategic voting.

c) Based upon an individual's preferences, they see both of the alternative candidates at exactly the same point on the issue dimension. In otherwords, they might as well be the same candidate to this particular voter. Switching your vote makes no sense as this would not improve the outcome more than sticking with your original candidate.

3) Context. Largely ignored by most individuals in political science who practice rational choice (which is what I have been using by the way). The contextual situation can lead to a change in costs and benefits received by the individual voter. For example, voter one who cares about terrorism at election A, loses her job before election B. Now the issue of the economy has a major impact on this particular voter, so the issue of terrorism gets pushed down and supplanted with the economy. Also, voters preferences can be weakened or strengthened by the changing context.

Stop with the broad sweeping statements! While you have obviously decided that the removal of Bush is the top of your preference order, that may not be the same for others, who may be concerned with the control special interests have in our government and see no difference between the two parties...in fact, what happened to the Kucinich, Clark and Dean campaign may have only reinforced their beliefs about what the party stands for....

I would also point out, that given the circumstances I laid out above, that Nader will have an almost non-existent impact on this election because of the way voters decide. Historically, those who have run in successful elections have always experienced a dramatic drop off in results the following Presidential election....Nader received 2% in the last election...he'll get even less this time.

Those who will vote with Nader 1)may not have been Dems to begin with ---> therefore they are not traitors to a party they do not belong to and 2) may not have voted for the Dem candidate, or at all any way --> so your assumption that with Nader in the race, that is a vote that would have gone to the Dems is not valid....it is more likely they would still vote third Party (no matter when the election is) or not voted at all....

We should really stop the hysteria about Nader....after all, the votes of the left don't belong to the Democratic Party....we should go out and earn them...not expect them! Those who are going into the general election expecting to not have to work for the voters votes are in for a rude surprise and need to snap out of it....this election is going to be hard work...no matter who is running!!!!!

[HFishbine]

105. Wow Naz! Great post!

Thanks!

You might find this interesting (or not); exit polling data from 2000: http://www.udel.edu/poscir/road/course/exitpollsindex.html

[Nazgul35]

119. Thanks...

What is interesting from your site is that the average Nader voter was:

Under the age of 29, earned less than $15k, unmarried, independent, liberal, who supported Perot or an alernative candidate in 1996, made up their mind in the last month of the campaign, holds nontraditional or no religious views, never attends religious services, supports some form of abortion, did not like Lieberman as VP, believed that neither Bush/Gore had knowledge to be President, handle a world crisis or shared their view of government, Gore was too conservative...

In a two way race of those who would not have voted:
31% would have voted for Nader...23% would have voted for Gore...29% for Bush, 9% for Buchanon

1% of Gore supporters would have voted for Bush
2% of Bush supporters would have voted for Gore

[RichM]

102. An unintentionally revealing glimpse into the mindset of a "Democrat"

:puke::puke:

[Cuban_Liberal]

104. 1st clue: Those who would support Nader wouldn't vote Democratic

Can you find Waldo now, with the help of that clue? :eyes:

[charlie]

106. Au contraire

In every Nader voter, there's a repressed Democrat waiting to be released. The proper method to remove the left-fringiness crust is to hit him with a teeth-rattling charge of TRAAAAIIITOOOR!!! enough times that his Democrat-nature is realized.

[HFishbine]

109. Yes!

I think that works on those with repressed heterosexual tendencies too.

[Cuban_Liberal]

111. "The floggings WILL continue, until morale improves!"

[info being]

117. People like you actually get him more support

Show a little respect to those who DON'T like the Democratic Party one bit but vote for your dead stiffs (Kerry) anyway. Show a little sensitivity and you might get us to continue to do so.

Flame people who speak to us and you WILL create an opposition.

[Iverson]

123. Oh, de enemies 'll be denounced (doo-dah, doo-dah)

De enemies 'll be denounced (Oh doo-dah day).

Dey make a negative atmosphere (doo-dah, doo-dah)
Take our energy away (Oh doo-dah day).

Denounce 'em all all night,
Denounce 'em all all day.
And by de way, I own their vote (Oh doo-dah day).

(curtain)

[Cuban_Liberal]

125. LOL!

VERY cute! *applauds* :hi:

[library_max]

156. "Intellectually, ridicule is bankrupt" /nt

[redqueen]

124. Or maybe, just maybe, we live in safe red states

For crying out loud, will the whining never stop?!

Stop berating people for being fed up with being herded into a choice between corporate stooge A and corporate stooge B, and do something about the problem!

[jpgpenn]

129. Admin has deleted 90% of my replies to this thread...

NO since in me replying further. Also recieved more warnings then I can count. You know what it was all worth it!:toast:

[Forkboy]

131. man,that's a bummer

I did like your exchange with Skinner though.Good laughs are in short supply here.

[jpgpenn]

132. you want laughs? LOL

just watch Nader!:dunce:

[Forkboy]

134. Nah

this thread tops Nader anyday.

[charlie]

135. You bet it was!

Compared to the other 9000 "Me too!" Nader threads, I'm sure yours is uniquely unique, though I'm too dumb to detect the nuance that makes it so. Nevertheless, you soldiered on, adding your imitable twist, damn the server load. Well done, we couldn't be prouder!

[jpgpenn]

136. in your own words!

you being "dumb" wont be held against ya!:toast:

[Deansspecialinterest]

137. I guess you're now an enemy of DU n/t

[jpgpenn]

139. If I am...

Too Bad! Was all well worth it!:toast:

[HFishbine]

141. I agree

it was worth it. Thank you.

[jpgpenn]

142. NO, Thank You!

:toast:

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgpenn]

147. Kick!

:kick:

[jpgpenn]

158. KICK!

:kick:

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgpenn]

160. Funny you ask!

I always had great fondness for Nader. The stunt he pulled this time really wasn't needed , as you and like minded thinking people like you will soon see. He will need all the support he can get from such staunch supporters as yourself.

Now for your homosexual infatuation connection you like to bring up, doesn't exist!


BTW, love the way you post your teddybear Chaves in everyone of your postings! LOL, watch out for those hemorrhoids!

[jpgpenn]

161. KICK!

:kick:

[Guaranteed]

163. Yes, voters are merely resources, to be bought and sold, siphoned

and stolen.

People who vote for Nader in an election like this would NEVER have voted for the Democrats, so get over yourself.

[Adjoran]

166. The bottom line

is that every vote for Nader or the Green Party is probably one that would have voted Democratic if they saw the choice as it is, between two and only two candidates with a chance to win.

I don't think they are "enemies" on the issues, but they are not being realistic at all.

I know my "perfect candidate" will never appear, and if he does, he will probably lose. My real choice is between the two who might actually win the race. Anyone else is just a distraction who could cost the election.

The "perfect" should never be the enemy of the "good."

[morgan2]

167. so? im an enemy of the democratic party

and proud of it.