House Member
Posts: 3,365 
Location: USA
Location: USA
February 25th, 2008, 10:14 AM
Well looks like Ralphy is in it again to play the spoiler. I am sure the Democrats just rolled their eyes once again realizing that he is just going to make it that much tougher. Nader is to the Democrats what Ross Perot was to the Republicans during the Clinton years.
Last week I thought that Obama had a real good chance but now with this new development McCaine could wrap this one up.
Well looks like Ralphy is in it again to play the spoiler. I am sure the Democrats just rolled their eyes once again realizing that he is just going to make it that much tougher. Nader is to the Democrats what Ross Perot was to the Republicans during the Clinton years.
Last week I thought that Obama had a real good chance but now with this new development McCaine could wrap this one up.
House Member
Posts: 3,365
Location: USA
Location: USA
February 25th, 2008, 11:50 AM
I would bet that all he is doing is throwing his hat in the ring. I would say that the money he uses to campaign is a fraction of what the other two parties use. I tell you he is just playing the spoiler as he must know he cannot win. What he does is take away a lot of environmentalist votes as well as protest votes. Protest votes meaning people who are fed up with both main parties.
I would bet that all he is doing is throwing his hat in the ring. I would say that the money he uses to campaign is a fraction of what the other two parties use. I tell you he is just playing the spoiler as he must know he cannot win. What he does is take away a lot of environmentalist votes as well as protest votes. Protest votes meaning people who are fed up with both main parties.
House Member
Posts: 3,365
Location: USA
Location: USA
February 25th, 2008, 12:08 PM
That is a good question Wolf. I've always wondered why he has targeted the Dems the last few presidential elections. His running does nothing but help the GOP. Nader will assuredly take a certain percentage of votes from the Dems.
Here in Massachusetts the local GOP black listed a powerful and staunch Republican with a lot of money named Christy Mihos. The governor was a Republican (Mitt Romney) and during his term fired Miho's (another Republican) brother from state government. Mihos took his millions and ran for governor as an Indepedent solely for "pay back". It was so clear to everyone that he was running for revenge. He was successful as he alone wrested the Governor's office from 12 years of GOP rule and handed it to the Democrats.
That is a good question Wolf. I've always wondered why he has targeted the Dems the last few presidential elections. His running does nothing but help the GOP. Nader will assuredly take a certain percentage of votes from the Dems.
Here in Massachusetts the local GOP black listed a powerful and staunch Republican with a lot of money named Christy Mihos. The governor was a Republican (Mitt Romney) and during his term fired Miho's (another Republican) brother from state government. Mihos took his millions and ran for governor as an Indepedent solely for "pay back". It was so clear to everyone that he was running for revenge. He was successful as he alone wrested the Governor's office from 12 years of GOP rule and handed it to the Democrats.
Executive Member
Posts: 9,533
February 25th, 2008, 01:03 PM
I've never liked Nader and one of the reasons was that I always thought that the Corvair was one of the best cars produced in North America. The car had the same swing axle problems as the Beetle and most of the problems had been fixed by the time GM lost their nerve aqnd scrapped it. Nader's book; "Unsafe at any Speed" was a joke from any technical standpoint.
I think Obama can get passed Nader.............I hope I'm right.
Quoting EagleSmack
It makes on wonder if some of all that corporate money didn't find it's way into Nader's pockets.
Well looks like Ralphy is in it again to play the spoiler. I am sure the Democrats just rolled their eyes once again realizing that he is just going to make it that much tougher. Nader is to the Democrats what Ross Perot was to the Republicans during the Clinton years.
Last week I thought that Obama had a real good chance but now with this new development McCaine could wrap this one up.
Last week I thought that Obama had a real good chance but now with this new development McCaine could wrap this one up.
I've never liked Nader and one of the reasons was that I always thought that the Corvair was one of the best cars produced in North America. The car had the same swing axle problems as the Beetle and most of the problems had been fixed by the time GM lost their nerve aqnd scrapped it. Nader's book; "Unsafe at any Speed" was a joke from any technical standpoint.
I think Obama can get passed Nader.............I hope I'm right.
House Member
Posts: 3,365
Location: USA
Location: USA
February 25th, 2008, 01:29 PM
I think this election will be so tight that Nader will take JUST enough from Obama. Last week I thought Obama had a better shot but now the Clinton Campaign is starting to roll out the dirt on Obama and Nader's entry into the race. I was sort of looking forward to the change that Obama was offering. I am not a fan but I think we need a bit of change.
Oh well...we'll see.
Quoting #juan
I think if big money got into his pockets it would be known about. The thing is that Nader doesn't need it because of his campaign style. He doesn't spend the large amounts of cash as the others or really hits the campaign trail. He just says that he is running and that has been enough because of his reputation. He is a spoiler. I am just curious to his motivation as it only spells bad news for the Dem Party.
It makes on wonder if some of all that corporate money didn't find it's way into Nader's pockets.
I've never liked Nader and one of the reasons was that I always thought that the Corvair was one of the best cars produced in North America. The car had the same swing axle problems as the Beetle and most of the problems had been fixed by the time GM lost their nerve aqnd scrapped it. Nader's book; "Unsafe at any Speed" was a joke from any technical standpoint.
I think Obama can get passed Nader.............I hope I'm right.
I've never liked Nader and one of the reasons was that I always thought that the Corvair was one of the best cars produced in North America. The car had the same swing axle problems as the Beetle and most of the problems had been fixed by the time GM lost their nerve aqnd scrapped it. Nader's book; "Unsafe at any Speed" was a joke from any technical standpoint.
I think Obama can get passed Nader.............I hope I'm right.
I think this election will be so tight that Nader will take JUST enough from Obama. Last week I thought Obama had a better shot but now the Clinton Campaign is starting to roll out the dirt on Obama and Nader's entry into the race. I was sort of looking forward to the change that Obama was offering. I am not a fan but I think we need a bit of change.
Oh well...we'll see.
Executive Member
Posts: 9,533
February 25th, 2008, 02:27 PM
Quoting EagleSmack
Eagle.............From what Nader says, and most other indicators, Nader comes off looking like a Democrat, so for all intents and purposes, he is pooping in his own nest. Is Nader just a kind of closet crazy who gets off on having another brief fling in the spotlight. however futile?
I think if big money got into his pockets it would be known about. The thing is that Nader doesn't need it because of his campaign style. He doesn't spend the large amounts of cash as the others or really hits the campaign trail. He just says that he is running and that has been enough because of his reputation. He is a spoiler. I am just curious to his motivation as it only spells bad news for the Dem Party.
I think this election will be so tight that Nader will take JUST enough from Obama. Last week I thought Obama had a better shot but now the Clinton Campaign is starting to roll out the dirt on Obama and Nader's entry into the race. I was sort of looking forward to the change that Obama was offering. I am not a fan but I think we need a bit of change.
Oh well...we'll see.
I think this election will be so tight that Nader will take JUST enough from Obama. Last week I thought Obama had a better shot but now the Clinton Campaign is starting to roll out the dirt on Obama and Nader's entry into the race. I was sort of looking forward to the change that Obama was offering. I am not a fan but I think we need a bit of change.
Oh well...we'll see.
World Police
Posts: 4,771
Videos: 1
Videos: 1
February 25th, 2008, 02:47 PM
Nader has run as an independent or a green in every presidential election since 1992, he's doing his usual thing.
Of the votes that Nader gets in a presidential election, I wonder how many of those voters would not have voted at all if he hadn't run?
To suggest that he is stealing democrat votes doesn't compute with me, when one votes NDP in Canada, are they stealing Liberal votes?
Nader has run as an independent or a green in every presidential election since 1992, he's doing his usual thing.
Of the votes that Nader gets in a presidential election, I wonder how many of those voters would not have voted at all if he hadn't run?
To suggest that he is stealing democrat votes doesn't compute with me, when one votes NDP in Canada, are they stealing Liberal votes?
House Member
Posts: 3,365
Location: USA
Location: USA
February 25th, 2008, 03:32 PM
To say he does not steal votes from people who would have voted Democrat is wishful thinking. He does exactly that. That is why the Democrats are up in arms about his tossing in the hat at this juncture. Pat Buchannan stole votes from the GOP as did Ross Perot when they ran.
Juan... I am not too sure why. Maybe he does it to promote himself and his causes and could care less about what candidate it hurts. Maybe his goal is to not neccessarily screw the Democrats so the GOP will when but it is used to shed light on himself and his interests. As Perot was the thorn in the GOP's side for two elections, Nader is the thorn for the Dems because of his environmentalist causes.
To say he does not steal votes from people who would have voted Democrat is wishful thinking. He does exactly that. That is why the Democrats are up in arms about his tossing in the hat at this juncture. Pat Buchannan stole votes from the GOP as did Ross Perot when they ran.
Juan... I am not too sure why. Maybe he does it to promote himself and his causes and could care less about what candidate it hurts. Maybe his goal is to not neccessarily screw the Democrats so the GOP will when but it is used to shed light on himself and his interests. As Perot was the thorn in the GOP's side for two elections, Nader is the thorn for the Dems because of his environmentalist causes.
World Police
Posts: 4,771
Videos: 1
Videos: 1
February 25th, 2008, 03:38 PM
Eagle, according to wiki, Nader said the following in a book he published after the 2000 elections.
"In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."
So, I don't think it's as clear cut as saying he steals only democrat votes. It seems to me people in general like an alternative to the usual.
Eagle, according to wiki, Nader said the following in a book he published after the 2000 elections.
"In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."
So, I don't think it's as clear cut as saying he steals only democrat votes. It seems to me people in general like an alternative to the usual.
House Member
Posts: 3,365
Location: USA
Location: USA
February 25th, 2008, 03:49 PM
Quoting DurkaDurka
I don't doubt he steals votes from both sides. The protest vote if you will. However that is from his book an I am sure he gets a lot of flack because he screws with the Democratic runner. He is trying to justify his running. Everyone knows he is not going to win. He is closer to the Dem Party wrt views than he is with the GOP. Just look at the news today. The Dems are upset and the GOP says it can only help our party. Last Presidential election John Kerry attacked Nader for running and Bush praised him. What does that say?
Eagle, according to wiki, Nader said the following in a book he published after the 2000 elections.
"In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."
So, I don't think it's as clear cut as saying he steals only democrat votes. It seems to me people in general like an alternative to the usual.
"In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."
So, I don't think it's as clear cut as saying he steals only democrat votes. It seems to me people in general like an alternative to the usual.
Executive Member
Posts: 9,533
February 25th, 2008, 04:00 PM
Eagle
I have to say that there is no evidence to prove that Nader sets out to spoil the day for the Democrats but I think he has been a spoiler none the less.
Interesting article:
Yes, Ralph Nader did cause Bush’s election in 2000 (updated)
After almost eight years, it’s probably time to stop fighting the Nader battles of 2000, even if Nader himself seems determined to keep them alive.
To begin with, despite some gnashing of teeth among Democrats, there’s very little chance Nader’s running again this year will hurt us in the election. The last time he ran, in 2004, he garnered only .38% of the vote. And this year he’ll be lucky get a third that many votes.
Besides, even if Nader were somehow to win enough votes in a close state this year to make it appear as though he made a difference in the outcome, it would be an illusion: unlike 2000, in 2008 the only people who will vote for Nader are confirmed vote protestors. Nader won’t be stealing their votes from Obama or Clinton; he’ll be stealing them from some other third party or write-in candidate.
Still, for the sake of historical accuracy, I do have to take exception with one of the arguments we continue to hear from Nader supporters — the claim that he didn’t really cost Gore the election in 2000.
Here’s how the argument goes: you can’t blame Nader for the outcome in Florida, it begins, because Gore didn’t really lose the state. It was stolen by corrupt officials in Florida and by the Supreme Court. Besides, the argument continues, if Gore had run a better campaign, he would have swamped Bush by a big enough margin to win regardless of the Nader vote; thus, it’s really his own fault, not Nader’s.
The problem here, of course, is with the implicit assumption that there was only one cause for this electoral cataclysm. Unfortunately for Nader apologists, however, that simply isn’t true. There were several causes for Bush’s “victory,” one of which was Ralph Nader, and all of which share responsibility.
Eagle
I have to say that there is no evidence to prove that Nader sets out to spoil the day for the Democrats but I think he has been a spoiler none the less.
Interesting article:
Yes, Ralph Nader did cause Bush’s election in 2000 (updated)
After almost eight years, it’s probably time to stop fighting the Nader battles of 2000, even if Nader himself seems determined to keep them alive.
To begin with, despite some gnashing of teeth among Democrats, there’s very little chance Nader’s running again this year will hurt us in the election. The last time he ran, in 2004, he garnered only .38% of the vote. And this year he’ll be lucky get a third that many votes.
Besides, even if Nader were somehow to win enough votes in a close state this year to make it appear as though he made a difference in the outcome, it would be an illusion: unlike 2000, in 2008 the only people who will vote for Nader are confirmed vote protestors. Nader won’t be stealing their votes from Obama or Clinton; he’ll be stealing them from some other third party or write-in candidate.
Still, for the sake of historical accuracy, I do have to take exception with one of the arguments we continue to hear from Nader supporters — the claim that he didn’t really cost Gore the election in 2000.
Here’s how the argument goes: you can’t blame Nader for the outcome in Florida, it begins, because Gore didn’t really lose the state. It was stolen by corrupt officials in Florida and by the Supreme Court. Besides, the argument continues, if Gore had run a better campaign, he would have swamped Bush by a big enough margin to win regardless of the Nader vote; thus, it’s really his own fault, not Nader’s.
The problem here, of course, is with the implicit assumption that there was only one cause for this electoral cataclysm. Unfortunately for Nader apologists, however, that simply isn’t true. There were several causes for Bush’s “victory,” one of which was Ralph Nader, and all of which share responsibility.
House Member
Posts: 3,365
Location: USA
Location: USA
February 25th, 2008, 04:55 PM
To speculate on who will vote for which reason is only that...speculation. I think that the Democats are trying to tell each other to not panic. They are panicing some with Nader's announcement and for good reason. Clinton admitted that Nader could hurt the Dem nominee. The political landscape has indeed changed but history is on the GOPs side.
Quoting #juan
I do not think he does it to spoil the Dems chances at taking the White House. I don't think Ross Perot wanted to secure Clinton's presidency. I think Perot firmly believed in what he was doing. I think Buchanan wanted to send a message to the GOP when he ran though.
Eagle
I have to say that there is no evidence to prove that Nader sets out to spoil the day for the Democrats but I think he has been a spoiler none the less.
Interesting article:
Yes, Ralph Nader did cause Bush’s election in 2000 (updated)
After almost eight years, it’s probably time to stop fighting the Nader battles of 2000, even if Nader himself seems determined to keep them alive.
To begin with, despite some gnashing of teeth among Democrats, there’s very little chance Nader’s running again this year will hurt us in the election. The last time he ran, in 2004, he garnered only .38% of the vote. And this year he’ll be lucky get a third that many votes.
Besides, even if Nader were somehow to win enough votes in a close state this year to make it appear as though he made a difference in the outcome, it would be an illusion: unlike 2000, in 2008 the only people who will vote for Nader are confirmed vote protestors. Nader won’t be stealing their votes from Obama or Clinton; he’ll be stealing them from some other third party or write-in candidate.
Still, for the sake of historical accuracy, I do have to take exception with one of the arguments we continue to hear from Nader supporters — the claim that he didn’t really cost Gore the election in 2000.
Here’s how the argument goes: you can’t blame Nader for the outcome in Florida, it begins, because Gore didn’t really lose the state. It was stolen by corrupt officials in Florida and by the Supreme Court. Besides, the argument continues, if Gore had run a better campaign, he would have swamped Bush by a big enough margin to win regardless of the Nader vote; thus, it’s really his own fault, not Nader’s.
The problem here, of course, is with the implicit assumption that there was only one cause for this electoral cataclysm. Unfortunately for Nader apologists, however, that simply isn’t true. There were several causes for Bush’s “victory,” one of which was Ralph Nader, and all of which share responsibility.
I have to say that there is no evidence to prove that Nader sets out to spoil the day for the Democrats but I think he has been a spoiler none the less.
Interesting article:
Yes, Ralph Nader did cause Bush’s election in 2000 (updated)
After almost eight years, it’s probably time to stop fighting the Nader battles of 2000, even if Nader himself seems determined to keep them alive.
To begin with, despite some gnashing of teeth among Democrats, there’s very little chance Nader’s running again this year will hurt us in the election. The last time he ran, in 2004, he garnered only .38% of the vote. And this year he’ll be lucky get a third that many votes.
Besides, even if Nader were somehow to win enough votes in a close state this year to make it appear as though he made a difference in the outcome, it would be an illusion: unlike 2000, in 2008 the only people who will vote for Nader are confirmed vote protestors. Nader won’t be stealing their votes from Obama or Clinton; he’ll be stealing them from some other third party or write-in candidate.
Still, for the sake of historical accuracy, I do have to take exception with one of the arguments we continue to hear from Nader supporters — the claim that he didn’t really cost Gore the election in 2000.
Here’s how the argument goes: you can’t blame Nader for the outcome in Florida, it begins, because Gore didn’t really lose the state. It was stolen by corrupt officials in Florida and by the Supreme Court. Besides, the argument continues, if Gore had run a better campaign, he would have swamped Bush by a big enough margin to win regardless of the Nader vote; thus, it’s really his own fault, not Nader’s.
The problem here, of course, is with the implicit assumption that there was only one cause for this electoral cataclysm. Unfortunately for Nader apologists, however, that simply isn’t true. There were several causes for Bush’s “victory,” one of which was Ralph Nader, and all of which share responsibility.
To speculate on who will vote for which reason is only that...speculation. I think that the Democats are trying to tell each other to not panic. They are panicing some with Nader's announcement and for good reason. Clinton admitted that Nader could hurt the Dem nominee. The political landscape has indeed changed but history is on the GOPs side.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 10,207
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
February 25th, 2008, 05:09 PM
What possible problem could Nader pose to the normal electoral process in the United States which could not be overcome by Diebolt who ultimately control the counting. It dosen't matter anyway by the time November rolls arround much of the American electorate will be cold, hungry and homeless and they'll vote for whomever feeds them. Can any of you spell depression.
NAU NAU RAH RAH RAH ZISS BOOM BLAH NAU NAU OBAMA AND CLINTON WILL STICK IT TO YOU It's not an election it's a fascist erection.hahahahahahah
What possible problem could Nader pose to the normal electoral process in the United States which could not be overcome by Diebolt who ultimately control the counting. It dosen't matter anyway by the time November rolls arround much of the American electorate will be cold, hungry and homeless and they'll vote for whomever feeds them. Can any of you spell depression.
NAU NAU RAH RAH RAH ZISS BOOM BLAH NAU NAU OBAMA AND CLINTON WILL STICK IT TO YOU It's not an election it's a fascist erection.hahahahahahah
