Let there be no doubt as to where Nader would draw votes from...

[VOX]

I have read numerous posts here and have seen some articles which naively theorize that Nader might draw votes away from the GOP. A poll in today's Washington Post satisfactorily torpedoes that theory, IMO.

In a presidential race this close, a Nader candidacy is the GOP's *dream* -- half of GOP voters support his candidacy, per this poll.

Sorry, Ralph -- you were once a hero, but now your ego has morphed you into a stooge for the GOP.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41184-2004Mar8.html
viewing requires registration
Washington Post, Tuesday, March 9, 2004; Page A01
Support for Bush Falls On Economy and Iraq
President Bush, the target of months of criticism during the Democratic primary season, has seen public support fall to the lowest level of his presidency for his performance on the economy and the situation in Iraq, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll has found.

A majority of Americans -- 57 percent -- say they want their next president to steer the country away from the course set by Bush, according to the survey. Bush's standing hit new lows in crucial areas such as the economy (39 percent support him), Iraq (46 percent) and the budget deficit (30 percent).
<snip>
As a result of these doubts, Bush narrowly trails likely Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry by 4 percentage points, 48 to 44 percent, among registered voters in a hypothetical presidential matchup. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, an independent, claims 3 percent....
<snip>
In a bit of good news for Bush, Nader is drawing essentially all of his support from Kerry, who leads Bush by 9 percentage points in a two-way matchup with the president -- an indication Nader could play the spoiler for Democrats in 2004 as he did four years ago. Underscoring that potential, nearly two-thirds of Democrats opposed Nader's decision to run, while nearly half of all Republicans supported his move.
<snip>

[HFishbine]

1. An important corallary in those poll results

Given only the choice of Kerry or Bush, the Nader voters go to Kerry, not to undecided. What this means, quite clearly, is that those "Nader" voters are readily available to Kerry -- all Kerry has to do is speak to them and their issues.

[vi5]

2. I hate that we have to focus our energy this way, BUT...

If Kerry speaks to these voters and continues to fight (as I think he has been doing) and get out his message then we won't have to worry about it.

[TruthWins]

3. Will They Really Vote Nader?

How many Nader supporters at this stage were supporters of Dean or Kucinich who are still miffed that Kerry has the nomination. When they are standing at the polling place six months from now, how many of them are really going to vote Nader, knowing full well that he will not win and that they are increasing the chances that Bush will win?

I believe Nader will get far less support in November than current polls show. Bush, too :)

[9119495]

4. Right on brother

I worked on the Dean campaign and I know some are quite miffed still but I believe they'll come around. Kerry and Dean together on stages throughout Sept-Oct. will make the difference--and this will happen. I believe these two have already reconciled.

[dfong63]

5. your focus is wrong

Nader can't force anyone to vote for him. by running, all he's doing is giving people a choice. isn't that what democracy is supposed to be all about? forcing people to vote for candidates they don't want is soviet-style thinking. it's amazing to me to hear these demo-stalinists self-righteously fuming about a man whose "crime" is just giving people the opportunity to vote for him.

[mobuto]

6. No that's not what democracy is all about

Every one of the Democratic candidates would have liked to have been President, yet you don't see the ten candidates all running against Bush. What they understand and what Nader doesn't understand (or if he does, he doesn't care) is that we don't have the luxury of splitting the Progressive vote among multiple candidates. This is a matter of pragmatism, not Soviet-style repression --- If Kerry and Clark and Dean and Edwards and Sharpton and Kucinich and Gephardt and Graham and Moseley-Braun and Lieberman were all on the same ballot with Bush, none of them would have a chance. Better to have a less-perfect that you can unite behind, than a perfect candidate who splits the vote and ensures certain defeat.

And I don't like being called a Stalinist.

[zoeyfong]

7. Sorry, Kerry -- you were once a hero, but now your ego

has morphed you into a stooge for the GOP.

[VOX]

8. Will you be voting for the Democratic candidate in November?

Or will you enable *?

Oh, yes, there's a big difference between Kerry and *, or have you enjoyed the last 3 1/2 years under *?

:kick:

on edit: typo

[MadHound]

9. Rather than dealing with "what ifs" and "maybes"

Let us deal with the concrete facts of the last election. Better yet, let us get it straight from the horse's mouth itself, Mr. 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." from the house organ of the New Dems, Blueprint Magazine, <http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919>

Just because one says that Nader threw the election to Bush, just because you whine and yell and stomp about it ad nauseum, doesn't make it so. The reasons that Gore lost in '00, and the reasons for Kerry's success or failure in '04 can all be traced back to one source, the strategies and execution of the Democratic presidential campaign.

Gore shot himself in the foot numerous ways in '00. The Congressional Dems did the same in the '02 midterm elections. It is up to Kerry and his handlers to not make the same mistakes in '04