Nader Should Bow Out- Because When the Dems

[Guaranteed]

lose they're just going to blame it on him.

If the Democrats are going to learn the value of leadership they need to lose on their own, without a third party to blame.

On edit: Although, you know, they didn't seem to learn from 2002...so, nevermind, they probably won't anyway.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. He might bow out anyway

unless he really does find a way to siphon those repub votes.

[noahmijo]

2. The stakes are higher ALL liberals or leftists would rather see Bush gone

I don't think Nadar's entering the race is going to make as much of a difference this time. Mainly because in 2000 the far left core that normally would have voted for Gore voted for Nadar out of optumism that he might actually win. They didn't see the full negative externalities of throwing away their votes.

Now that anybody who is half sane wants Bush gone, all radical leftists who would normally cast their vote for Ralphie will more than likely say "screw it the main goal is to get rid of Bush first and formost" and vote for whomever the Dem nominee is.

To paint a crude picture it's like committing a crime and going to jail and being given time to think about it. Sure at the time you committed the crime you didn't think much of the consequences. Now that you know what jail is like, if you could go back in time, chances are you wouldn't commit that crime again.

~Brought to you by an Ex-Republican who has seen the light side of the Democrat Party~

[newyawker99]

6. Hi noahmijo!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. Welcome to DU

Yeah, I agree that Ralph's not gonna get many votes this time.

I voted for him last time, and am not sorry I did so as it OUGHT to have been the perfect time for a vote of conscience (no way $hrub should have beaten a guy who can actually speak his nation's own language), but will be giving the Dems my vote this time to be on the safe side.

Will keep on fighting for election reform, though, no matter what.

[InvisibleTouch]

8. Do you really believe....

...that Nader's intent in this race is to siphon off Repug votes? I'm not asking sarcastically, I'm asking with genuine interest. Has he said this? Has there been any indication that this is the case? Because he's got a hell of a lot to make up for....

[mgc1961]

10. Sure is.

Notice the words chosen for his announcement of candidacy. It's not a "liberal" message. It's a citizen message. He mentions great Republican and Democratic Presidents and talks about issues that will concern just about any fair minded citizen. Issues such as corporate crime, taxpayer-funded subsidies, budget-busting contracts, etc... It's all there if we, as concerned citizens, will only see it.


"In times past, the naysayers were organized commercial powers whose unbridled greed and authoritarian structures were denounced by Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt."

<snip>

"Corporatism has turned federal and state departments and agencies into indentured servants for taxpayer-funded subsidies, budget-busting lucrative contracts, and dwindling law and order against the widely publicized corporate crime wave. This resistant crime wave has looted and drained trillions of dollars from millions of workers, their pensions, and from small investors.

There has been ample media publicity to such crimes, abuses, and frauds, of these unprecedented self-enrichments of top executives at the expense of their fiduciary duties to their companies and owners. Has the President supplied the required law enforcement resources for action? Scarcely. He is otherwise preoccupied. Very few of these bosses have been brought to justice and jail.

Lincoln's "new birth of freedom" and "government of the people, by the people, for the people" must indeed not perish from this land.

Only an organized, self-confident people, lifting their expectation levels, and applying their time, energy and talent, can achieve Lincoln's foreshadowed horizons, where freedom from fear, a shift of power, and just solutions can become realities.

Comparing the Republican Lincoln's assurance, in a period of great peril and daily destruction, contrasts with the costly politics of fear peddled daily by the obsessive Republican incumbent of today, George W. Bush."

<snip>

[MadHound]

11. Something that might interest you then MS

From Al From: "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters 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?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919> The quote is on page three.

So apparently Nader DID siphon off a decent number of Republican votes, enough that apparently Gore would have suffered if Nader hadn't been in the Florida race. I find this enlightening in the face of all of the baseless accusations that Nader cost Gore the election in Florida. Now it looks like Nader actually helped Gore out. Perhaps in light of this evidence people won't be so hastey to condemn Nader.

[The Magistrate]

14. Oh, Mr. Hound....

Purest swill, although it is a pleasure to see you citing Mr. From of the Democratic Leadership Council as a source for the hogswallop.

It is telling that, in the article, no source is given for the "polling data" cited, and it is a claim that contradicts the reports of the exit polling consortium, which have been widely reported, and appeared in the New York Times once again a day or so ago. These are quite clear that the number of Democrats voting for Wrecker Nader was twice the number of Republicans doing so. These alibis for the wretch are growing damned tiresome, and bespeak a fundamental desire to evade responsibility on the part of his adnherents. Mr. From in this article is at pains to try and demonstrate Vice-President Gore lost through running too far to the left, and so seeks to checkmate any argument in favor of doing so that may presented along the lines most adherents of Wrecker Nader here attempt, namely that if a Democrat runs to the left he will gain great numbers of left and progressive votes, as typified by the draw of Wrecker Nader in '00. Mr. From is arguing for abandoning the left entirely, for a more centerist and up-scale orientation, and seeking to demonstate at all costs that the loss occured because this was not done. He is no more interested in the facts of the matter than any other ideologue with a case to make.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[jpgray]

3. People will blame it on whatever suits their agenda--like always (nt)

[Dookus]

4. Don't your feet

ever get tired from stomping them so hard in a petulant fit?

I think you WANT Bush to win so you can say "neener-neener" because democrats didn't nominate your guy. I think that's a reprehensible, not to mention childish, position.

[arwalden]

7. But Dookus... Doooookus!

"If you just try a little kindness" maybe they will see things differently. "Don't be so antagonistic" and perhaps you can win friends instead of making enemies. "Just try to understand their concerns" and you'll get the same understanding in return.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

-- Allen

P.S. You do know, don't you, that many of the provocateurs on DU are very likely to be pubescent pre-adults who cannot even vote (yet who enjoy a good argument for the sheer joy of it.) It's difficult to tell who's-who anymore so I find it easier just to dismiss them all.

[Old and In the Way]

5. I'll miss your anti-Democratic posts when the new rules go in effect.

I'm sure you'd find a lot more sympathetic responses over at that other site.

[John_H]

9. He should bow out for the opposite reason.

When the dems win, they'll say to the Nader supporting left, "why don't you go ask Nader?" whenever they come to the administration with demands.

[zoeyfong]

13. The only sensible reason yet.