Should Ralph Nader Get Out Of The Race?

[Beloved Citizen]

[Dookus]

1. Not only the race, but public life.

He has shamed himself and betrayed his life-long principles.

[Shakespeare]

2. Agreed. Did you see Talbot's interview with him today in Salon?

Reading his pathetic rationalization for why it's okay to take money from republicans was enough to make me vomit. The man is craven. Absolutely craven.

[koopie57]

6. I was on the fence

about his running again and leaning towards he should get out of the race this year. He can run in 2008, but this year is way too important. Well, I was on the fence until I saw him on Jon Stewart the other night and he just seems to be on an ego trip or something. It is like every four years he gets his 15 minutes of fame fix and then looks forward to doing it again in four years. He doesn't seem quite right to me. Just seems to be missing a screw or something.

[formernaderite]

9. Oh please...I'm voting for Kerry but the idea that a candidate who might..

...attract a small portion of the 50% of voters who never vote, automatically becomes a pariah is becomeing a bore. Most of the Nader voters are voters who usually vote for a third party(Green party and Libertarians), they will never vote for your guy.
You also had disengaged democrats who voted for him in 2000...Guess what they're all voting for Kerry this time.
Seriously, without actually engaging all the people who don't vote in this country, you cannot mount a campaign complaining about the few who elect the third way. If not Nader, believe me they'd vote for another third party candidate.

[bigbillhaywood]

12. I'm sure that's not universal, but it's a pretty sound analysis in sum.

[louis c]

14. I hope you're correct.

If you're wrong, there's hell to pay.

[Jack Rabbit]

3. This still stands

From Democratic Underground
Dated February 24

Mr. Nader, please back out:
My open letter to Ralph Nader
By Jack Rabbit

And then there is the war in Iraq. Mr. Bush and his people had perfectly good intelligence, but chose to cherry-pick that which suited their pre-determined course of action. They may as well have made up many of their justifications for war. Saddam had no biochemical arsenal, he was ages away from reconstituting his nuclear capabilities and it was foolish to think he had any associations with al Qaida. As you correctly said Sunday on Meet the Press:

When a president misleads, if not fabricates, going to war and sending our sons and daughters to war with no exit strategy, with a quagmire over there, that is very serious, Tim. If there's any better definition of high crimes and misdemeanors in our Constitution, then misleading or fabricating the basis for going to war, as the press has documented ad infinitum, I don't know any cause of impeachment that's worse . . . .
I think this country deserves a serious explanation of why, how, when this country was plunged into war against a brutal dictator tottering over an antiquated, non-loyal army, surrounded by hostile neighbors who, if he made one move against, would have obliterated him. It was oil.

I couldn’t agree with you more, Mr. Nader. That is why I cannot support your candidacy for President this year as I did four years ago. That is why I am going to vote for the Democratic nominee, whether it is Kerry, Edwards, Sharpton, Kucinich or the Devil himself. The only thing wrong with calling George W. Bush the worst president in US history is that it would concede an extremely questionable point, namely, that he is president.

Read more.

[Amaya]

4. Nader is a non-issue

move along...

[Ruffhowse]

5. Shouldn't even need to ask.

[welshTerrier2]

7. Nader is hurting the voters who support his ideas

no rational person can fail to see that Nader's candidacy puts the entire country at risk ... 4 more years of bush would do unimaginable damage to people not just in this country but all over the world ...

there are many who appreciate, as I do, Nader's forceful anti-corporate message ... and I certainly see nothing wrong with legitimate efforts to work toward a real, multi-party electoral process ...

but this year (and 2000 for that matter) is so obviously different from other elections ... bush's evil minions have even brought up the idea of postponing (cancelling?) this year's elections ... record budget deficits, loss of civil liberties, appointment of right-wing judges, endless warfare, the merging of church and state, rampant corporate crime, catastrophic environmental risks, and an undermining of legitimate lawsuits against corporations ... wake up Ralph ... you're killing those who believe in your message ...

get the hell out before you do even more damage !!

[TNMOM]

8. hell yes.

[NervousRex]

10. Ralph....

please Cheney yourself, you self-serving, rat-bastard, sabatour. If you and your minions could be likened to a compost heap...and I think they can...then you, Ralph are the biggest weed growing out of it. I spurn you as I would spurn a rabid dog. I wouldn't trust you to sit the right way on a toilet seat....(thanks to Rowan Atkinson)

[IronLionZion]

11. Why do we still talk about Nader?

It's not like he's holding a gun to his supporters' heads to vote for him. It's up to those folks whether they will re-select Bush or not.

[sangh0]

22. I know why I still talk about Nadir

Do you know why YOU still talk about Nadir?

[IronLionZion]

23. and why is that?

I try to avoid it.

[louis c]

13. Nader talks of an instant runoff

which is some kind of numbered voting.

Hey, asshole, that's what we're in now, a F**king run off. Does anyone think Nader can actually win?

The final two candidates are Bush and Kerry. Who in their F**king right mind could disagree with that?

[welshTerrier2]

16. i support Instant Runoff Voting ...

IRV, as i understand it, is a voting system that allows voters to vote based on their deepest beliefs without having to worry that someone evil might get elected if they do so ...

so, let's say you really wanted to vote for Nader or any third party candidate with absolutely no chance of winning ... no problem ... you make that your first choice and then make Kerry your second choice ... then, if your first choice candidate fails to get a majority (plurality?), that vote is discarded and your second vote is used ...

this would enable those who believe in the platform (or candidate) of a third party to show support for their beliefs without having to worry about the implication of doing so on the outcome between the two major parties ... it also provides a system that could ultimately begin to decentralize control over our government away from a two-party only process ...

[louis c]

17. That's my point

If you want to vote for Nader, he has no chance of winning, so you choose Kerry as your second choice.

Dah, that's what we have now. The only difference is you can't feed Nader's ego by casting a useless vote for him and still make it count.

I understand completely an instant run-off. They vote that way in Cambridge Mass.

The difference, as it stands now, is very small. Everyone knows we're down to two viable candidates, so vote accordingly, and realize the world is not perfect. Next year you can begin the long, arduous task of changing the constitution, or the voting laws in the various states. I will support anyone in that process.

In the mean time, let's defeat the most evil group of people to ever occupy the White House. First things First.

[welshTerrier2]

20. a few points

you wrote:


If you want to vote for Nader, he has no chance of winning, so you choose Kerry as your second choice.

Dah, that's what we have now. The only difference is you can't feed Nader's ego by casting a useless vote for him and still make it count.


first, let me be very clear on the point that I don't think Nader should be running now nor did I think he should have run in 2000 ... the only sane vote this year, at least in all battleground states, will be for Kerry ...

I disagree with your statement, however, that "that's what we have now" ... and I also disagree that the only difference only has to do with "feeding Nader's ego" ... and I further disagree that the difference is "very small" ...

IRV is important ... it is critical that voters be able to express their "real preferences" in addition to voting pragmatically ... for many voters under the current rules, they are forced to vote pragmatically and are not able to express their true views on the issues or the candidates ... that is not a small difference ... it's a huge difference ...

Nader and his huge ego are not the issue at all ... the issue is the right of the voters to be heard ... this includes voting for Greens (i.e. Cobb), Libertarians, Socialists or anybody else ...

Finally, we are in complete agreement that our primary focus must be getting the evil ones out of the Whitehouse ... but there's no reason Democrats can't broaden their base by agreeing to explore issues like IRV to accommodate voters sitting on the third party fence ... the argument is not that the Constitution should be changed immediately ... the issue is that Democrats should express an openness to exploring this important issue ...

[louis c]

21. To clarify

I am using the proverbial you not the specific you

Next, I agree wholeheartedly in "preference voting", but that discussion is best suited for Nov. 4, 2004 ( I expect on Nov. 3, to be celebrating).

Now, as I said, First things First. All our energy should be spent in unseating G.W. Bush. All the rest of this talk, at present, is academic.

So, as you can see, I agree. But I like winning first, and dealing with issues that concern the next election, after this one is over.

[Dorian Gray]

19. That also gives someone "two choices" in a sense.

I don't like it, I'm sorry to say. I think it works better if we, as a people, have to make a difficult decision. Do we vote our principles or do we vote for the lesser evil? (I'm not saying in this case Nader is our principles or Kerry is the lesser evil. But, there are some third party candidiates that always look better to me than the top dogs!)

But, perhaps I am a traditionalist! :)

[John_H]

15. This poll is proof DU allows Freepers as members

which is fine by me since they're just as stupid whether they're trying to pretend to be dems or just being themselves.

[Beloved Citizen]

18. I'm not sure I understand the inference here.

Please explain. Is this poll, in your vaguely expressed opinion, "stupid" because:

A) Some people are actually suggesting that this obvious appendage of the Bush campaign stay in the race?

Or:

B) It is reactionary to suggest that Nader get out of the race because he truly is the embodiment of all progressive virtues in spite of the fact that the RNC is doing all it can to get his ass on the ballots of as many states as possible as a way of helping to further empower America's very first quasi-fascist regime?

Or:

C) You are a Nader supporter and, being offended by this poll, felt that smearing its author was a perfectly acceptable thing to do because you are such a good and moral person, one is truly concerned about the world and all the good people who live in it, and that being such gives you a license to lie?