Where are all the Nader supporters? Are they all happy?

[Road Scholar]

Are they gonna vote for him again and help continue this mess? Just wondering.:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Union Thug]

1. Yes, if there were instant run off voting, I would support Nader.

But our system is unfortunately skewed to the two party system, so supporting people that truly reflect your ideals is not realistic.

[LoZoccolo]

6. So you admit it's a token gesture.

For me, politics is about everybody and how I treat them, not a personal expression. You can go get some crayons and express yourself; you don't have to strengthen the Republicans doing that.

[Union Thug]

9. I admit that the system is rigged and that you cannot

vote your conscious, despite the idealistic rumblings from those that think this is a truly a democratic system. With instant run-off voting, third, fourth and fifth parties become viable.

[LoZoccolo]

10. Why would you support Nader, anyways?

Why wouldn't you vote for me? I ran in 2004 as well, and my platform far exceeded Nader's. By supporting Nader, you are against free education, for instance. Also, I accepted no Republican money as Nader did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=566495
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=572430

[Union Thug]

12. That's the point...

If you were running on a free education platform, I could check you off as a first choice, Nader as a second, Gore as a third, and all those votes would roll over to Gore should my top choices prove to not have sufficient votes to remain in the race.

Funny thing is, I didn't vote for Nader - because the system is skewed towards a two party monopoly and my thinking was simply to stave off a republican. But I certainly supported much of his platform, and I think that the Green Party represents my POV much more than the Dems (in general - there are individual exceptions within the party).

[mainegreen]

2. No, because we get blamed because the democratic party lawyers

evidently were not as good as the republican party lawyers.

[derby378]

3. Let this be a warning to all potential Kinky voters in Texas...

If you vote for Rick Perry, you vote for a conservative Republican.
If you vote for Carole Keeton Strayhorn, you vote for a conservative Republican.
If you vote for Kinky Friedman, once again, you vote for a conservative Republican.

That leaves you with only one liberal Democratic choice for Texas Governor - Chris Bell. Vote wisely.

[FreakinDJ]

4. They are over at FreeRepublic planning the 08 stratagy

[zanne]

5. You got that right.

Even as the Bush administration is using our Constitution as toilet paper, some people will still not admit that Nader cost us the 2000 election. Denial is a very powerful thing.

[LoZoccolo]

7. I like the perpetual shirking of responsibility they display.

Any time the Bush* administration does something that the Gore administration wouldn't, in contradiction to their "little difference" lie, it's time for "That was six years ago! Quit bringing up old stuff!"

[texasleo]

8. Nader?

:mad:

[ronnykmarshall]

33. Ralph?

:puke:

[Road Scholar]

11. I'm just sayin' that we need to get our act together. Screw all the

little piss-ant individualisms.:spank: :spank: :spank:

[LoZoccolo]

13. Politics is about getting things done.

People can express their individuality in many other different ways that don't involve letting the Republicans start wars and let people drown in hurricanes. Because people need to realize it's not all about them.

[Telly Savalas]

63. So does the constant name calling directed at Naderites from DU

constitute "getting things done"?

These threads stray from the very pragmatism which you're trying to promote: are we trying to woo Naderites or tell them so fuck themselves so that we can whine we fail to earn their vote again?

Earlier this morning I read a post at the Decembrist which is a much more on target analysis of the Democratic Party's lack of electoral success than "Dooodz, Nader sux!":

http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2006/05/nascar_man_goes.html

Good reading...including the comments.

[ToeBot]

15. Is that what you think you are doing? Quick call J.L. Austin...

He needs to pen an addendum to his seminal work, "How to Do Things with Words".

[RandomKoolzip]

14. I voted Nader in 2000 because I was naive and short-sighted.

I regret it, and I apologize on behalf of my Green (and otherwise) fellow Nader voters who are too proud/stupid to admit they fucked up.

[Minnesota Libra]

21. RandomKoolzip, THANK YOU, I think you are by far the one and only.........

.....person who has ever apologized for voting for Nader.

Your apology is :toast: DEFINITELY ACCEPTED :hug: and welcome to the enlightened world of "backfired idealism".

I'm setting here is absolute awe that anyone would think to apologize!!:wow:

[eridani]

46. I voted for Nader in 2000 because I was pretty sure Gore would win WA

And, in fact, Gore did win WA state, so I don't regret it. I thought Nader would help build 3rd party structure with his name recognition, but that did not turn out to be the case. I've subsequently decided that no third parties are really serious about electoral politics on the national level. (YMMV at the local level, of course.)

[FlaGranny]

62. I used to like Nader, but

he's not really serious. You can't win presidential elections by popping up once every 4 years to run. He should have run for congress or senate or SOMETHING. That he didn't just tells me he just wants to stir things up. I agree with just about everything the Greens stand for, as do many of us here on DU, but with our present system they just don't have a chance of winning a presidential election. The Greens need to find a more serious candidate than Nader, too, if they want to continue running a presidential candidate.

[meganmonkey]

16. Good! Let's scapegoat Nader

so that we don't have to address the real reasons we are in such a mess! That way the problem will last forever and everyone can keep bitching!

Does this ever get old?

[Armstead]

19. Thank you

Nader weas a mistake, but there were valid reasons for it.

George Bush is just a syptom of things the Democrats have also been complicit. The sooner that is acknowledged, thd sooner the Deocrats can make the discontent that Nder represents irrelevant.

[StellaBlue]

20. AfuckingMEN

The Democrats could've gotten my vote in 2000. If their message was better than Nader's. But it wasn't. And he's still right - there isn't enough of a difference between the two parties. They're BOTH corporate whores. And therein lies the problem.

[meganmonkey]

39. What confuses me the most

is that people here seem to think that, in some parallel universe where only 2 candidates exist, Nader-voters would have voted for Gore/Lieberman. If Nader hadn't been on the ballot, I either wouldn't have voted, or I would have written someone in.

Lieberman was a no-go for me. There was no way in hell I would have voted for him.

Then there is also the THEFT that happened, the bad campaigning thanks to Donna Brazile, and so on and so forth.

But the assumption that all these Nader-voters would have voted for Gore/Lieberman is so far off I don't know where to begin. In fact, I don't know if my explanation of it would break all of DUs rules so I better not even try :)

[LaPera]

31. You got it!

[seaglass]

41. Seems to me if we can't even get rid of the glaring reason why

we are in such a mess, we'll never be able to dig down deeper.

[radio4progressives]

58. No we need to scapegoat Progressives!

That was the whole point! :hi:

[Bonobo]

17. What has Nader said that you disagree with?

Maybe we could have a dialog, but...

"Are they all happy?"

Are you home sick from school?

[StellaBlue]

18. I agree - if there were runoff voting, I would still vote Nader.

I have the right and OBLIGATION to vote for who I think is best.

Having said that, the reason I unabashedly supported Nader in 2000 was that I am in TEXAS, where my vote didn't count for shit. If I'd been in Florida, I would've voted for Gore. As it was, I thought (and still think) that Nader's message needs to get out, Nader needed to get into the debates, and we wanted the Green Party to get that magic 5% of the vote in Texas so they could get matching funds in the future (including for VERY important statewide races, where we consistently have credible Green candidates here in Texas).

I voted Kerry in 2004, because, stupidly, I thought he actually had a chance. I was far too optimistic. Then again, I had been living in Europe for three years at the time, and ability to tap into the American political climate was temporarily (blissfully) disconnected.

Now get over it.

[Bandit]

22. Yes it is all Nader's fault...

:banghead: What a world some of us live in...

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. So true. Had Nader never existed, we would be in a Utopia now.

[ghostsofgiants]

25. I refuse to even ride in a safe car...

It was just his first step in his diabolical scheme to hand the US over to the Republicans.

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. Hey, that was supposed to be top secret info!

[ghostsofgiants]

28. It's not hard to figure out.

Why do you think it's called a SEAT belt? Because Nader knew that Thatcher's Conservatives would hold SEATS in British parliament during the 80s, which was one of his biggest inspirations. It's all painfully obvious if you look at the facts.

[Kickin_Donkey]

40. We wouldn't be in Utopia ...

but we also wouldn't be in Iraq either.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[High Plains]

26. Oh boy, another anti-Nader jackoff festival.

Yeah, it's all Nader's fault.

If Democrats tried running on a progressive platform, they wouldn't have this problem.

[LoZoccolo]

44. They'd have the same problem: being out of power.

Kucinich got what, 3% of the primary vote? If people were dying for someone like him, he would have won the primary.

[Recursion]

29. How Greens saw "no difference" is beyond me

My next cafepress offering, I guess...

[Road Scholar]

36. I'm still having trouble with that one. nt

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[deutsey]

49. When it comes to corporate control over our politics, there's scant

difference.

Having said that, I still think the Democrats (many of them, anyway) seriously want to do things to benefit people. But we shouldn't kid ourselves that they many of them aren't beholden to corporate interests that help to water down or even block efforts to help the "common folk."

[LaPera]

30. In_Transit, as if Bush wouldn't have stolen the election if he...

needed even a million or more votes in Florida, that was the state where brother Jebbie was placed as the overseer, because both parties knew it would come down to Florida...If Nader wasn't in the race, they would of compensated for that as well, far in advance - and gotten rid of more democratic votes, just as long as they kept the race close...They were going to steal Florida, no matter what...This was well planned years in advance and their ace in the hole was ALWAYS the right-wing Supreme Court...

Just as it's been planned well in advance to steal the 2006 elections to hold the majority as well as 2008 and plant another BushCo fascist to keep the fascism moving in the right direction, a police state if you will.

Most are just so blind and want to believe its a matter of just getting out the demo vote...the republicans know this, and they will keep stealing it again & again with electronic voting machines, because NOTHING ever happens to them when they do, wouldn't you?

Most still have their heads in the sand and still refuse to believe they have no control as long as these electronic voting machines are in place all acroos the country (HAVA of 2002)...Pitiful!

I find it so incredibly sad & pathetic that some unaware individuals are still pointing the finger with those worn out notions, that they can't prove and yet still can't move on...again, to me personally, I find it so misguided & pathetic!!

[Road Scholar]

35. I have no doubt that the repugs stole the election. It was easy.

Just a few precincts in a few close states.Just cheat a little, that's all it took, with some smear campaigns and a few dissenters like Nader supporters. It was my understanding that the republican party actually financially supported the Nader group and they accepted it. All I'm saying is that we need to keep up with everything and do whatever it takes or it's gonna get worse before it gets better.

[LoZoccolo]

45. All speculation.

If Nader wasn't in the race, they would of compensated for that as well, far in advance - and gotten rid of more democratic votes, just as long as they kept the race close...

:boring: Nader ran and if more of the people who voted for him had their heads screwed up straight when they went into the voting booth, Gore would have won.

Thanks for reposting though, after your first post got deleted for being inflammatory.

[BlooInBloo]

32. They'll never admit to being wrong in helping get a republican president.

[Road Scholar]

42. I know. How dumb is that. That type responds to emotional

issues. Easy prey for Rove and company. Their speciality.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

34. Remember: "There will be no difference between Bush and Gore."

what a joke....

[burythehatchet]

37. What a fucking productive thread

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

[Telly Savalas]

64. I just got 8 PM's from Nader voters

who said that after reading this thread, they've decided to vote Democratic no matter what in 2008.

[tabasco]

38. No difference!

These people are so gullible they might vote republican next time.

[mikelewis]

43. Our elections are rigged. Nader had no impact on our losses....

If we have free and fair elections and we lose, it still won't be because of Nader.

[JNelson6563]

47. From what I know of Nadar supporters

they are NEVER happy.

Julie

[deutsey]

48. The question is, are the Democrats gonna fight like they mean it

and help stop this mess?

After watching them fold in 2000, rubberstamp a lot of Bush's agenda, wage a lackluster campaign in 2004, and refuse to support each other when the few brave Democrats critize the junta, I'm just wondering...

[charlie]

50. Reagan Democrats

Now those are some wretched, absurd creatures, about as nonsensical as Homicidal Pacifists. They got us into this mess, but I never saw troughs of shit rained on their heads. Saw oceans of ink wasted on proposals for wooing them so they'd vote for their own fucking party, though.

[LWolf]

51. Ignorance on display.

I'm not a Nader voter; never voted for him, campaigned for him. For what it's worth.

The suggestion that Nader's campaign/s, and those who supported it/them, are responsible for the mess the Democratic Party or the country finds itself in is, at the least, ludicrous. An incredible display of ignorance and willingness to leave reality behind when it doesn't fit the desired mindset. All too familiar these days, really. When we hear that there is no difference between the "Ds" and "Rs," this is what it comes down to. It's not just the "leaders." It's the voters, too. It's just as nauseating to see "D" voters acting like the opposition as it is to see so-called "leaders" enable those in power. :puke:

Want the Democrats to win? Concerned about votes lost to 3rd parties, or the large body of voters who don't show up at the polls out of disgust with the corruption of the 2-party system?

Reach out to them. If you want the Democratic Party to receive their votes, insist that the Democratic Party earn them with their platform, their words, AND THEIR DEEDS.

Give them a candidate they can vote for without holding their nose; they'll show up at the polls. Or, conversely, go with the status quo, and be adult enough to acknowledge that not all voters are going to go along with you. Don't blame them for your, or a party's, choices though.

[Road Scholar]

52. Is that what the republican party did? The sure benefited in 2000.

[LWolf]

53. They benefitted from corrupt election officials and procedures.

I'm not now, never have been, and never will be willing to become what I despise in order to win.

I'm not willing to lie, cheat, steal, or enable the elite to continue their status while keeping the underclasses below them in order to "win."

None of those are "wins" in my book, and they don't benefit anyone.

[Phx_Dem]

54. Are you saying that you despise the Dem party? nt

[LWolf]

61. Now that's an interesting interpretation.

The answer would be no, unless you define the Democratic Party as a corrupt group willing to lie, cheat, steal, or enable the elite to continue their status while keeping the underclasses below them in order to "win."

I despise anyone, individual or group, willing to become corrupt liars, cheats, thieves, and powermongers to "win," or when they "win."

Is that how you define the Democratic Party?

[Phx_Dem]

65. I did not understand your post and was looking for some

clarification, thx.

[welshTerrier2]

55. perfect!!

thanks ... you saved me the trouble of saying it for the 10 millionth time ...

think about this stupidity - how many "I always vote for the Democrat" voters like the idea of trying to appeal to moderate republicans? you know, the ones who not only didn't vote for Gore in 2000; they voted directly for bush ... those voters are somehow worth pursuing ...

but Greens or Naderites or other third party voters, who often have many common values with Democrats and certainly with progressive Democrats, are insulted and their votes are not considered to be worth pursuing ...

what a bunch of macaroons ...

[radio4progressives]

56. Is Nader Running Again? I hadn't heard that.

But gosh - watch out for those other unnamed third parties that some in the MSM have hinted are being formed.

[mdmc]

57. are you being sarcastic

:D

[radio4progressives]

59. 50/50

I really haven't heard that Nader is running again, but then who the fuck knows right now - after all it's 2006 not 2007 or 2008. Has he announced his candidacy? If so I missed it. But if he does, he's going to be in company from what the MSM has been strongly hinting at a plethora of third parties..

So far, these "hints" have all been from Right Wingers who are pissed off at Bush/GOP - and are threatening out loud to form third parties.

Of course there are a plethora of "Third" parties on the Left as well, but I kind of doubt any are going to be in contention in 2008.

[mdmc]

60. hopefully some one will come up with an anti drug war,

anti pre-emptive war ... party... and we can all get behind it... or watch the dems take over and secure a pro-west stable democracy for Iraq before they withdraw our troops. either way...

[omega minimo]

66. Where are all the NON VOTERS? Are they all happy?

Are they gonna NOT VOTE for anyone again and help continue this mess? Just wondering.


Next time yer board and can't find a dog to kick, try that fer an OP :hi:



Given the current display of spinelessness among (most) Dems in Congress and Dems in general (including DU largely ignoring the Hayden farce) -- oh and the fact that the elections are rigged -- there seems less and less point in continuing to vote.

:patriot:

[KyuzoGator]

67. I voted Gore in 2000 (in Florida), and I do not blame Nader.

Gore ran an unforgivably incompetent campaign against the most beatable candidate in decades. The margin of victory should have been utterly fraudproof.

People voted for Nader beacuse our two-party system is FUCKING BROKEN. In this country, we are free to vote for the person who we feel will do the best job. I would have preferred they had voted for Gore, but the onus was on Gore to convince them. He failed and lost for it.