« Bush Is Not Staying Behind | Main | Same-Sex Marriage Ammendment Bites The Dust »
July 13, 2004
Nader: The Little Engine That Could
That's the story of Ralph Nader, an unlikely candidate who has managed to gain 4% in polls and is trying with all his might to out perform Bush and Kerry. Even though he has achieved fame as a consumer advocate, compared to the other major candidates, he has not been able to collect enough funds to meet the demands of his campaign and he hasn't been receiving much media coverage.
So why is he still in the game?
Some people say that in the 2000 presidential run, Nader was to blame for leading the elections in favor of Bush. Now, people continue to say that the only reason that Nader is back is because his presence alone drives votes from Kerry and sends it to Bush's direction. Does anybody see it that way?
Posted by Tuck at July 13, 2004 02:57 PM
Comments
If that's his mission, then I owe him one. I dont think its necessary, Kerry is too "all over the map" to have the power a United States President commands.
Posted by: Andrew at July 13, 2004 04:02 PM
Most people would love the opportunity of a 3rd party. I believe the deadlocks between the 2 parties would end and a more effecient political machine of coalitions would be established if we could get a 3rd party going. If Nader or Perot more power to them.
Posted by: Alex at July 14, 2004 12:08 AM
I was a sucker for the 3rd-party vote for a few years, as many other young people are. For me, it was primarily an act of rebellion and helped me feel superior concerning my political views. Only when I was a little older did I realize that ANY party and their leaders will be corrupt and inefficient by the time they become a real contender for the vote. This may sound cynical, but unfortunately, it's also the truth regarding U.S. politics - no matter the party. So, the real issue becomes voting for whichever Democrat or Republican presidential candidate we think is the lesser of two evils. Any other vote, whether we want to accept the fact or not, is in reality a waste of time and only serves to take away a vote from a Democrat or Republican candidate who actually has (or had) a shot.
Posted by: Joel at July 14, 2004 02:06 PM
Nader is so used to the attention that for some reason he thinks whatever he does is beneficial to the American public. He needs to get a reality check. Check out this site to get the message across with a humorous Ralph Nader t-shirt- http://www.hellection.com
Posted by: Jesus Beltran at July 14, 2004 08:14 PM
I can't find out how to contact the webmaster of this site. However, Ralph Nader is listed as a Green Party candidate. He has not been nominated nor is he a member of the Green Party. He is running as an indpendent candidate. This error should be fixed immediately.
Posted by: Francisco Pardo at July 15, 2004 09:51 AM
Nader is the candidate with integrity. He stands for what looong ago were things which set apart the Democrats. From his website~
"Did Ralph cost Al Gore the election in 2000?
No.
Al Gore won the election in 2000.
George W. Bush cost Al Gore the election.
No one is entitled to votes, they must be earned.
To say someone is a "spoiler" is to relegate all third-party and independent candidates to second class citizenship. American does not belong to two parties.
The Constitution does not mention parties.
This country had a rich history of third parties.
George W. Bush’s recount strategy in Florida cost Gore the election.
The deceptive butterfly ballot, which Democratic officials approved, cost Al Gore the election.
Katherine Harris-style purging of tens of thousands of non ex-felons from the voter roles cost the election.
A 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court stop of the recount cost Gore the election. (See Jeffrey Toobin’s book Too Close to Call).
Playing the "what if" game, Gore cost Gore the election in Tennessee, Arkansas, and each of the presidential debates.
Buchanan cost Bush four states (Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico).
Except for brief, progressive moments, such as at the convention, which helped his polls, Gore ran the usual, lackluster corporate Democratic campaign.
And they did. They voted for Bush, including more than 250,000 self-identified Democrats in Florida.
Moreover, a Democratic exit poll showed that Ralph’s votes came 25% from Republicans, 38% from Democrats, and the rest were nonvoters who would have only voted for Ralph.
In other words, more than sixty percent of Ralph’s voters would NOT have voted for Gore.
In New Hampshire, exit polls showed that Ralph "took more votes" from Republicans than Democrats, by a 2 to 1 margin.
CNN’s polling data said that if neither Nader nor Buchanan had run, Bush would have beat Gore 48 to 47 percent, with 4 percent who voted not voting.
For the last three years Democrats and media pundits have been smearing Ralph Nader and the Greens — oblivious to the facts — looking for a scapegoat for the failures of their own party and its candidates.
It is not the job of third-party or Independent candidates to make sure either of the two major parties wins.
That would be like asking a new start-up to make sure Microsoft or Apple has more market share.
Moreover, there are 100 million people in this country who do not vote. There are plenty of nonvoters for all candidates to attract.
Electoral votes are not a zero-sum game.
Historically, third parties and Independents move very important agendas."
Posted by: Lorraine at July 15, 2004 07:58 PM
Why is Nader in the poll and Badnarik is not???
The Libertarian candidate will likely be on the ballot in all 50 states, Nader will be on the ballot in no more than 10 states and not even have the possibility of gaining the needed electoral college votes to become President.
Badnarik should be added to this poll as he is the only Third Party candidate with a legitimate possibility of becoming President.
This site doesn't even have a Bio for Badnarik!
Please add Michael Badnarik to your poll, otherwise it can not be considered valid and accurate.
eb
http://badnarik.org
http://lp.org
Posted by: eb at July 16, 2004 12:14 AM
In addition to fixing Nader's party membership, you should also add Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party candidate. Most people in the country won't even be able to vote for Nader if his ballot access continues at the rate it's going. Michael Badnarik on the other hand will be on the ballot in every state with the possible exception of Oklahoma. Considering that Badnarik is already polling similar numbers to Nader (1-5% depending on the poll) when both are listed as options, there is not really any good reason to keep him off your poll. And while you are at it, it is only fair to list the other two candidates who have a reasonable chance of being on the ballot in at least half of the states: David Cobb (Green) and Michael Peroutka (Constitution). And for the various other candidates who will be on in only a few states, you might as well add "Other" as a choice as well.
Posted by: Mike Jarvis at July 16, 2004 01:06 AM
Forget Nader. He is on the ballot in six states now. He will not get on the ballot in enough states to even theoretically win. THE third-party candidate this year is Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate. And as Michael has said, he's not stealing votes from anybody. The votes don't belong to the Democrats or the Republicans ... they belong to the voters!
Posted by: Joe at July 16, 2004 09:47 AM
we dont need 3 separate parties to split the democratic/independant vote! when all the repubs will aonly have the choice to vote for bush, why dfont we ever have a party that will split the republican vote, huh? this country is seriously screwed up, when third part candidates, who KNOW they HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE OF WINNING, still run, and split the democratic/independant vote, so that the repubs end up with the majority. the third party may have great ideals, but they are too egotistical to see that THEY are destroying this country by dividing our vote. You'd think theyd rather move somewhat in the direction they want, rather than split the vote, and ensure that we wont be able to. I respect nades views, but I have no respect for him for knowingly splitting the vote. Thats not even to mention that its republicans who are helping him get on the ballots, how sick can you get.
And it is splitting votes people, cause if they wouldnt vote for nader, or this libertarian party, they'd have to take the next best choice, which would be democrats, whom, if you look at history, have done more for this country than repubs would like you to believe. Yes, we need radical change in this country, yes, we need more liberal views in the whitehouse, but we need to take the next step to start fixing this country, and get back on track... and that next step is kerry. Dont just take people word for it.
go to www.johnkerry.com, read about his life, read about the issues, watch his speaches, whatch his interviews.
and stop listening to the biased media views. judge for yourself, find the facts for yourself. STOP BEING LAZY AND IGNORANT.
Bush's ads about kerry are misleading and FALSE, the issues are not black and white, and if you'd research them for yourself, you'd know that. Who's really the pessemist here, when about 75% of bush's ads are negative attacks on Kerry, and they are ALL BIASED AND DISTORTED. The facts are never as black and white as they want you to believe.
Posted by: NoLongerSleeping at July 20, 2004 02:06 PM
Umm ... People who would vote for the Libertarian Would Mostly Likely vote Republican Before Dem.
And I'm all about 3rd. parties ... Why should I make the choice of the "lesser of two evils" ... it shouldn't be about that at all ..
Posted by: Sed at July 20, 2004 06:09 PM
Do you suppose that the reason that softvote isn't necessarily in line with the media polls is because it is not accurate, or because it is more accurate? I see the answer as one of the following:
1. Bush supporters are more proactive therefore Bush is ahead on softvote.
2. The media has it all wrong.
Or... perhaps there's something I haven't thought of. What does everyone think?
Interesting to note that the USA/Gallup poll has it pretty much even...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm
Posted by: RetiredCPOForBush at July 26, 2004 02:35 PM
The reason Nader is still running is because, he has too much integrity to back down because of Cry-Baby Democrats that just wont beleive that Gore ran a boring campeign that cost him alot of votes. So instead they blame Nader.
Posted by: Adam "Kurt" Martin at July 27, 2004 03:14 PM
I think we should have four parties to chose from:
Christian Coalition
Green party
Republican
and Democrat
But with Bush running who needs a christian coalition? He's it. I mean I don't agree with all of the republican veiws and I agree with some democratic veiws, but above all I have to vote according to my convictions. I would like another party, but I couldn't ask for a better canidate to vote for than Bush.
If revival ever hit this nation, which it looks like it will, then a new christian coalition party could trump all of the other parties. Christians are a vast sleeping army.
Posted by: Ben Spencer at July 31, 2004 11:38 AM
Hello I'm Kurt Canning. Though I probably won't be taken seriously by many of you. Iam running for president as a write-in candidate. I represent my co-founded party of "Centrist Equality".
Though this post has nothing to do with Ralph Nader. I wanted to get my point across to the lot of you.
In this statment of candidacy, I promise two things to you.
One, I promise to fix the budget, allowing us to have the wonderful commodities that we want, or most likely deserve. Lower taxes,less inflation,less unemployment. Are all some of the things that can be accessed through my plan for balancing the budget. By eliminating the national debt as soon as possible, and after its eliminated. I intend to establish a balanced budget ammendment. To prevent the country from going under if it falls into the wrong hands.
Two, I promise equality for all. Minorities and Majorities. Conservatives and Liberals. Men and Women. Not one soul will have more or less rights than someone else. Abolishing affirmative action would be my first step to this. How many of you, have worked hard to get a job, studied hard and are highly over-qualified for the job you want. But when you apply, they tell you. "You'r resume is wonderful. but I'm sorry we can't hire you."
Affirmative Action isn't fair to Majorities. Many of you might not know this. But affirmative action is the #3 reason for unemployment.
And one more thing I would do. Reform income tax. The bush administration not only LOWERED tax for the rich. But also managed to IGNORE the middle and lower class brackets so im going to increase income tax for the rich, to make it fair for everybody.
Now I have to go. I hope you will look into my campaign.
VOTE CANNING/DWYER 2004!!
Posted by: Kurt Canning at July 31, 2004 06:38 PM
Remember Nader fans that it takes a distinct lack of integrity to accept funding from major Republican contributors who have no interest in him winning but only in him disrupting the process with his wild ego. He has also accepted their help in terms of names (fake and real) on petitions to get him on the ballots and admits paying $1/signature to homeless people who don't necessarily want him to be president any more than the Republicans do but want that dollar. I guess that's one way to get the Republicans to give money to the poor they've created.
Speaking of the economy, David Lazarus writes
"It can't be easy to have to defend your economic policies all evidence suggests that average Americans are worse off today than they were four years ago".
Here are just a few of the real numbers:
When Bush took office on Jan 20, 2001, the Dow Jones industrial average was at 10,587.59. Tuesday
it closed at 9,944.67
When Bush took (and I do mean TOOK) office, the unemployment rate was 4.2%, its now 5.5% according to the labor department.
When Bush took office, US Consumer debt totaled almost $1.7 trillion. Now its $2.038 trillion according to the Federal Reserve.
When Bush took office, bankruptcy filings during the previous year totaled almost 1.3 million, down 5% from the previous year. By Dec 21, 2993 bankruptcies had hit a RECORD of nearly 1.7 million, up 5.2% 2002 according the American Bankruptcy Institute.
When Bush took office, the federal budget had been balanced for 3 years straight and was in the 2000 fiscal year running a surplus of $236 billion - the largest surplus in US history - due to the economic policies of the Clinton administration. The White House is projecting another RECORD breaking budget deficit this year of $445 billion - which means we will have lost a total of 681 billion during this administration.
The average American is without question worse off now than 4 years ago.
Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington said that the key economic error was to attempt to stimulate the economy by skewing the benefits of three tax cuts toward wealthy Americans.
Citizens for Tax Justice reports that nearly 40% of the benefits from Bush's tax cuts go the richest 1% of Americans - those earning an average of $1 million/year. Less than 17% went to the 60% of the population earning $45,000 or less.
Bernstein said a crucial problem for Americans today is that wages are significantly lagging behind inflation. Prices have gone up 3% but wages have averaged 1.9% while many jobs are going overseas. He states that it would take extraordinary growth (which can not happen with these economic policies) at a rate of 400,000 jobs per month between now and November for Bush to avoid the dubious distinction of being the first president since Herbert Hoover to see a net decline in jobs during his term.
This past month we saw another report dramatically below the forecasted job numbers of 32,000 new jobs. This isn't even keeping pace with the number of new workers hitting the job market.
On the campaign trail Bush recently stated another example of his inability to grasp reality when he said "I'm running for re-election because I know how to take a strong economy and make it stronger". All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding but now you know the truth. What are you going to do with it????
Posted by: Kris at August 12, 2004 02:33 PM
