"Will Nader Help Bush Again"?

[jpgpenn]

Will Nader Help Bush Again?
By Mike Hersh
Feb 20, 2003

Email this Link

Printer Friendly Page
While most Nader supporters are intelligent and thoughtful people, Nader unfortunately attracts a number of people who seem to worship Nader as a god and relentlessly lie to themselves and others.

For example, there's no evidence to support the claim some Naderites make that Nader drew support from both Republicans and Democrats equally. In fact evidence indicates Nader drew close to twice as many votes from Gore as from Bush: "Voter News Service exit polls suggested Nader had the votes of 2% of registered Democrats, 1% of registered Republicans."

Some Nader cultists try to deny Nader intentionally helped Bush in 2000. Since we know Nader did help Bush, they must be claiming Nader was too dim to understand the impact of his focus on the closest swing states - especially Florida in the closing days of the campaign.

How could Nader not know he was helping Bush? Of course he recognized this risk but not only didn't care, Nader announced that was his intention. Nader told RFK Jr. that given a choice between Bush and Gore, Nader preferred Bush. Several progressives - many of whom had worked with Nader over the years - directly explained the risk to Nader, but of course Nader isn't that stupid. He knew he was helping Bush.

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


I think he will but just a little bit! The bigger outcome will be Nader's total lack of credibility once this process is over!

[bluestateguy]

1. Nader wants to keep his Bush tax cut

It's that simple. Many of his supporters are the kind of people who can afford to indulge in the act of "making a statement" by voting for Nader because they are people of the privileged classes that will not suffer in a Bush Administration.

[jpgpenn]

2. interesting point!

[mitchum]

10. Absolutely...

Certainly seems the case with every Naderite I know. Making a sham "principled" statement which ensures that their interests are protected. It's win/win for them.

[jpgpenn]

3. Come on, Nondemocratic supporters of Nader!

Where are you? What is your opinion on this subject?

[jpgpenn]

4. anyone there?

[Streetdoc270]

5. I'm hoping

That Nader will take votes away from Bush by giving the die hard Repubs who could NEVER vote for an evil slime dripping LIBERAL democrat but dont want to see bush in controll for another 4 years....

[The Magistrate]

6. Do Give It Up, Sir

Wrecker Nader will draw no such votes.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[redqueen]

17. So you think he didn't get any votes from Republicans in 2000?

Is that the impression you have?

[The Magistrate]

23. In The '00 Election, Ma'am

Wrecker Nader, according to available polling data, received about half as many votes from Republicans as he did from Democrats. The result of this was a net subtraction of votes from the Democratic Party v. the Republican Party, of signifigant proportion, sufficient in the case of Florida to deprive the Democrats of a clear majority in the state. The number of Republicans who will vote for Wrecker Nader is insufficient to do the enemy any harm, and it is therefore an insignifigant factor. The small number will certainly not be drawn from conservative voters, for Wrecker Nader's career as a lobbyist for regulation of business renders him utterly anathema to main-line conservatives, while his image as a liberal sachem renders him anathema ro cultural conservatives; both these have rightist third party alternatives available, if they cannot stomach the current regime but are unwilling to vote for a Democrat either. Wrecker Nader's only conceivable draw among Republicans is a very narrow splinter of comservationist cum environmentalist types, and tyese are far more likely simply to cross to the Democratic column, or to just stay home, than to vote for him.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Barad Simith]

7. I believe there will be plenty of conservatives ignoring Bush this time...

...but they will be voting for other independent or third-part conservatives, not Nader. Still, the effect is the same. The very few votes that Nader siphons from the Democrats will be more than compensated by the conservative, anti-Bush protest votes.

[The Magistrate]

8. That Is True Enough, Sir

There will be a number of conservatives disinclined to vote for the criminals of the '00 Coup, on grounds ranging from fiscal irresponsibility to civil liberties to sheer bloody-minded mendacity. Most will simply not bother to vote at all, rather than take up the various fringe party standards, but that is all to the good. It is as important to depress the enemy's turn-out as to increase one's own. This is why the Republicans will do all they can serreptitiously to assist Wrecker Nader.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Eric J in MN]

9. Mike Hersh offers no proof of his worst accusation.

Mike Hersh writes, " Nader told RFK Jr. that given a choice between Bush and Gore, Nader preferred Bush."

Where is his proof?

This was written for the internet. If he has proof, why not even a link?

[jpgpenn]

11. KICK for all the NonDemocrats at DU!

[gate of the sun]

12. look don't you think voter fraud was more

likely the culprit????I do.

[The Magistrate]

15. The Problem With That Line, Ma'am, Is This

The whole event was a complex one, with several factors operating. In analysing such an event, the first need is assess which factors are normally present in the function of the system, and then to assess the scale of differing normal and abnormal factors. The factor of fraud is a normal one, present in some degree in all elections; the factor of a well-financed extra candidate appealing to the left is an abnormal one, not previously or usually present. In Florida, the purge of the voter rolls probably depressed the Democratic turn-out by about 25,000 votes, while, given the best available polling data, the presence on the ticket of Wrecker Nader probably cost the Democrats about 30,000 votes. Thus, the abnormal factor accounted for the largest single depression of the Democratic total in that state. Had it not been present, and all the normal factors detrimental to the Party still been in operation, the Democrats would have carried the state by almost 30,000 votes, putting the matter well beyond reach by any skullduggery by the criminals of the '00 Coup. In such a situation, a proper analysis must conclude the abnormal factor caused the failure, since without it, the normal factors would not have sufficed to cause the undesireable result. In short, Wrecker Nader, and those seduced by his croakings, bear the real responsibility for the triumph of the criminals of the '00 Coup, the worst elements of reaction in our polity. This is denied at great peril.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[jpgpenn]

13. KICK!

:kick:

[jpgpenn]

14. KICK!

:kick:

[ShimokitaJer]

16. Will the Dems help themselves this time?

I've posted my opinion before, but I had to do something to keep you from self-kicking this thing again.

"Voter News Service exit polls suggested Nader had the votes of 2% of registered Democrats, 1% of registered Republicans."

How interesting. Given that 20% of registered Democrats voted for Bush, I guess that means that ten times the number of voters who voted for Nader preferred to give their votes to Bush. Kinda makes it hard to believe that Nader was responsible doesn't it? Not if you live in Mike Hersh's world.

Maybe, just maybe, Nader thought that if he called attention to some progressive issues that the Dems weren't talking about, it might encourage the Dems to address them. Gee, wouldn't it make sense to appeal to your base when it's so clear that your major problem is that many voters can't see the obvious differences between the two candidates. But I guess those elusive soccer moms were too important to risk talking about health care and corporate accountability in front of. Face facts: The Democratic party leadership said "fuck you" to their base in 2000, flipped them off again in 2002, and are now preparing their two frontrunners to moon them even as we speak.

And what is our response? To attack the one candidate who was talking about these issues in 2000. Why the fuck wasn't the candidate talking about democratic issues a Democrat?

[redqueen]

18. I wish those posting or agreeing with these hysterical rants

would think about what you're saying.

It's settled. This party is hopeless.

[The Magistrate]

21. There Are Two Major Problems, Ma'am, With The Line Above

First, those registered or self-identified Democrats who vote for a Republican are center-right types, who remain fairly common among older Democrats, particularly in the southern and western portions of the country. For a national candidate of the Party to run a camapaign aimed at left voters would only drive more of these people to vote Republican, and do much to solidify their allegiance towards the right: in short, it would mean less votes for the Party's nominee, not more.

Second, the far left is not the base of the Party: it is far too small to constitute a base, and it spends far too much time attacking Party office-holders and officials to be considered even a reliable constituency of the Party's. The base of the Party consists of center-left and left persons, to whom a candidate like Vice-President Gore or Sen. Kerry or Sen. Edwards is emminently acceptable, and who the far left is accustomed to attack as luke-warm compromisers. Persons to the left of the bulk of the Party's adherents are in no position to dictate policy to the Party, and the policy they wish to dictate would issue in disaster for the Party.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[YNGW]

19. Fuzzy Math

I keep seeing people here saying "A vote for Nader is a vote that will keep Bush in office."

Actually, this is only half true, and only if the voter would otherwise vote for the Democratic nominee. If you were planning to sit out the election or cast a protest vote for another third-party candidate, and you vote for Nader instead, the effect on the presidential race is exactly the same: nil.

If you decide to vote for Nader instead of John Kerry (or whoever is the Democratic nominee), then it's true that you're taking away a vote from Kerry--but you're not giving it to Bush. For simplicity's sake, let's say there are nine people in the electorate, and they split 5-4 for Kerry over Bush. If one voter switches to Bush, the split would be 5-4 in the president's favor. But if he switched to Nader instead, the split would be 4-4-1.

For those who want an accurate slogan, it should be "A vote for Nader instead of Kerry is half a vote to keep Bush in office."

[ShimokitaJer]

20. Hmmm... how about these equations

If you really wanted to voted for any Democrat but John Kerry, then John Kerry getting the nomination would also result in one lost vote for the Democrats. So a vote for Kerry is the same as a vote for Nader.

And if you were one of the disgruntled Republicans who switched affiliation to vote for Dean for his fiscal conservatism, but then Kerry's "electability" forced Dean out of the race so you went back the the Republicans, then a vote for Kerry was actually a vote for Bush.

I'm sick of people playing these games. If you can't convince the public that you deserve their votes, don't blame another candidate for "stealing" them from you.

[YNGW]

22. Exactly!

>I'm sick of people playing these games. If you can't convince the public that you deserve their votes, don't blame another candidate for "stealing" them from you.

Two thumbs up!





:thumbsup: :thumbsup: