Nader continues to spoil Wisconsin.

[LoZoccolo]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/jul/jul16.xls

[WI_DEM]

1. well it just means Kerry will have to keep working at

reaching out to the Nader voters here.

[mzmolly]

3. I don't know he can do really. Kerry's record is what it is?

http://www.globalstewards.org/democrats.htm#why

If Nader supporters would rather support someone with NO record and no chance of winning, over someone with a pretty damn good record who can defeat Bush, that's their deadly prerogative. *sigh*

I fear no matter what Kerry does, there is always SOMETHING to bitch about. Afterall, were only human.

[sandnsea]

8. Yes, that's right

It's very frustrating and has been for quite some time. Kerry is the most liberal candidate we could ever hope to get elected in this country at this time. He's done so much on the environment, health care, education, children's programs, minority programs, women's issues, GLBT rights; and it still isn't enough. I'm not happy with his trade votes either, but I know he's tried to put more regulations in all of them so believe he'll continue on that path as President.

Some people just have their agenda and it has nothing to do with what's good for this country over the next 4 years. I wish those that really do care would see that and just put aside their personal needs for 3 months. After that, protest at the White House every day, at least they'll have somebody who is listening and trying to move in a direction that will help everybody.

[LoZoccolo]

11. On deadly prerogative...

It's been suggested here that a Nader protest vote is pretty much a luxury that can only be afforded by white middle-class and upper-middle-class college students, and I'd pretty much agree with that (even though I think none of us can afford it no matter who we are).

So yeah, I think Madison, Wisconsin has a lot to do with this.

[PVnRT]

17. As long as they don't whine

if Bush gets re-elected, they can go ahead and vote for Nader. Provided, of course, that the so-called "liberals" who support the man don't care how bad it will get for Americans in the meantime, after all, it's all about "making a change" and "waking people up."

[mzmolly]

2. Go Bush!

:(

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. That's O.K. Edwards is "spoiling" NC

and it's got 5 more EVs than WI. :)

[spooky3]

5. Don't forget what Yogi says...

"It ain't over till it's over!"

[LimpingLib]

6. The last 2 polls show Nader hurting Bush.

I couldnt get that site to show up so I was unable to see it. Both of the polls showing Nader hurting Bush 1% in Wisconsin are in this forum.

Damn that Nader for spoiling it for Bush . We sure hate that around here dont we.

Honestly all the new registered progressive voters Nader brought in 2000 is whats really killing Bush in places and Bush would be toast had we let Nader have a chance in 2000 without repeating endless crapola about him being a waste. I bet had voters had a real choice in 2000 (they were told Nader wasnt a choice endlessly by idiotic Democrats who have hurt this nation badly..BADLY)then the new voters brought in would have been quite high and strongly leaning progressive .

[LoZoccolo]

9. Maybe,but that's a disingenuous argument.

As long as he spoils for Kerry more than Bush*, it doesn't matter (and you probably already knew that).

[LimpingLib]

7. And one more thing.

The vibrant progressive movement that came in 2000 on Naders side continues to splatter Bush like no Democrats have.

Look at Michael Moore for example.

Moore was as damned as Nader fyi (those with short memorys). Issues from sincere fighters win the day. A bunch of bandwagon followers just.. well.. follow.

[LoZoccolo]

10. Yes, look at Michael Moore for example.

He's not supporting Nader, and regrets going along with him. He's a good example.

[zulchzulu]

12. Tell me about it...

I do some grassroots stuff in WI and every now and then I have to deal with a Naderite that usually says stuff like:

- "Kerry sucks" (nothing to back it up with, just Kerry sucks...) This brand of Naderites are usually mid-50s obese potheads who did oodles of acid at Dead shows and now live usually with their mom and have no job.

- "They are both from Skull and Bones, so what's the difference" (not knowing anything about the policy differences nor the fact that their favorite cartoon Doonesbury is authored and created by Garry Trudeau, a fellow Skull and Bones alum.) This brand of Naderite is usually a more insipid version of the Kerry sucks brand, possibly due to be addicted to crank when they were teens. Some notable examples also include wacked-out X rave wankers that have a third-grade education.

- "I'm still upset about how Kerry about _____, so I'm voting for Nader" (former Dean or Kucinich supporters still bitter from the loss and not able to grasp the real importance of this election as well as not really knowing Kerry's policies or wanting to learn) This brand of Naderite is possibly still convinceable that Kerry isn't that bad and actually would be an amazing President compared to Bush (so why throw your vote away)... you just have to listen to them tell why Kerry should run as a socialist in 2008. Yeah, OK...

There are others like some that should be given tin foil hats on the spot, but...

[LimpingLib]

14. Since most are coming from Bush's end in Wis.....

.... then something tells me you are focousing on a narrow sample.

But then again thats what all the Nader bashers are best at isnt it? Whinning about what little votes came from Gore and not looking at all the other Nader votes and not looking at other 3rd partys.


(aside from voters who wouldnt vote for either party , most votes are coming from Bush)

And the sad thing is the Nader isnt the issue. The issues are the issue (I realize Im REALLY venturing into death ear valley now lol)and democracy is the issue in this nation with barely 50% turnout.

[LoZoccolo]

15. HEY this is a LIE! DOCUMENT OR RETRACT!

(aside from voters who wouldnt vote for either party , most votes are coming from Bush)

PROVE IT or ADMIT YOU MADE IT UP. This isn't funny.

[LimpingLib]

16. Isnt this a Wisconsin thread?

Lets see Judy Woodruff just ran BOTH polls I was talking about.

Bush 44%
Kerry 49%
(w/o nader)

Bush 42%
Kerry 48%
Nader 4%

(same poll w/ nader)

There is another Wisconsin poll that just came out that gives Kerry a net benefit of 1.0% in Wisconsin, check a thread called (thinking...)New Polls in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota or something like that.


Anyway I have been saying for a VERY long time that there are lots of social conservative voters who are economicly populist/progressive who would disagree with Kerry on both issues and would lean toward Bush but would vote Nader (in very large numbers) if they werent constantly being told Nader was a wasted vote.

Anywy this whole discussion bugs me because I dont give a flip who Nader or any other 3rd party canidate "hurts" , its 100% irrevelant to this pro democracy Democrat (all other nations seem to do just fine ith 3rd partys , the most prominent are left wing and all its does is drive conservatve support down to 30% or less due to driving up turnout). And its misleading in about 50 different ways. I think progressive minded voters who go after Nader (the effort to kill ballot acess and other gimmicks are disgusting) have hurt themselves (and Kerrys chances) in so many ways that they simply cant even imagine.

[PVnRT]

18. THAT'S your evidence?

Give me a break. That's statistical scattering, nothing more. Try again.

[LimpingLib]

22. 2 polls in a row.

And the first one was called a fluke. And I have said all along I dont care anyway.Well now we have 2. And even in Minnesota where Nader was getting 4.6% the net hurt to Kerry was just 0.9%.

We are supposed to get all excited over our canidate being hurt at most by 1%? Polls from 3 states showed the average hurt to Kerry was less than 0.9% and even then its probabily less as the state that showed Kerry getting hurt the most had obvious aberations and flaws.

We ALWAYS have 3rd party canidates EVERY election even ones where the media leads us to believe only 2 people are on the ballot . Typicaly 3rd party canidates get at least 2% . There is always a little pull in one direction or another and in unlikly ways. For example the butterfly ballot that took 24,000 votes from Gore and gave to to Buchanan.

2000 was considered to be an "extreme" example of one 3rd party hurting a major canidate but if you read exit polls then you will find Nader if he hurt Gore at all then it was 0.7% nationaly or lower and that doesnt even count the 3rd partys of the rigth canceling Naders effect out.In Florida btw Nader had even less effect than nationaly and I base that on him getting under 2% .

Not that I care anyway

[LoZoccolo]

20. Bullshit diversionary tactic.

Anywy this whole discussion bugs me because I dont give a flip who Nader or any other 3rd party canidate "hurts" , its 100% irrevelant to this pro democracy Democrat (all other nations seem to do just fine ith 3rd partys , the most prominent are left wing and all its does is drive conservatve support down to 30% or less due to driving up turnout).

I don't think anyone here has said he doesn't have the right to try and legally get enough signatures to run, etcetera, but if he does run, we are going to rake him over the coals because he lies and takes advantage of impressionable people (and takes money from Republicans). The fact that some people don't think that I should exercise my freedom of speech by calling someone out on their bullshit is 100% irrelevant to this pro democracy Democrat. Deal with it.

You conveniently exclude the fact that the countries that are just fine with third parties usually have a parliamentary system. And if you think that's fine and dandy, consider that a prime minister in those countries can come to power with like 35% of the vote. The idea of having third parties is not a pure system without negative consequences antithetical to the ideals of democracy.

[LimpingLib]

24. And if they didnt have it they would fight for it.

Nader has been fighting as have many of us. The fact that we dont have reforms in our system pushed by our outraged Democratic elitests is whos fault? Its just another reason we get into these spats constantly every single elction.

Look at Canada. They have a parliamentary system but that still isnt enough. Now the people have spoken and voted 20% for left wing 3rd party canidates (compared to 29% for conservatives and 36% for center-left partys)though in the winner take all parliament seats that only amounted to about 7%-8% of seats BUT WAS ENOUGH to control the balance of power. FYI center-left (which would be considered "progressive " in our country)voters were havinga fit that their party (equalivent ot our Democratic party) would loose total power. Actualy is was a great thing now they need to include a party in their government that is DEMANDING proportional representation . You see , they have a system but dont entirely like it and the voters now decided they want improvments .

Bottom line. The left fights and fights hard in other countrys where we are just a bunch of wet noodles here all worried about 1% here and there and damning an entir movement over it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. We've known for years that third party and indy candidates risk spoiling

elections, yet the big two haven't bothered to put some sort of preferential voting in place to nix that effect. Why not? I figure it's because occasionally it works in their favor, like the way Perot helped the Dems. They would rather gamble on an election and hope for the best with a "spoiled" race than risk letting a smaller party into a higher office.

Put pressure on your representatives and senators to get ranked voting instituted, if not at the national level then at least at the state level. The American voter does not need the indigestion caused by "spoiled" races.

[mzmolly]

19. Granny D said Nader himself could allocate his votes to Kerry if he

didn't win? I'm not sure what the process is called, but I'd sure like it if he did.

[PVnRT]

21. I don't think he can

He cannot throw his popular vote to Kerry's totals. He MIGHT be able to throw electoral votes to Kerry, if he wins a state...and that's not going to happen.

[mzmolly]

23. I don't recall the speech, but she was pretty specific about how this

could be done.

When I have some time I'll see if I can dig it up.