My final conclusion on Nader.....

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

A vote for Nader is NOT a vote for Bush. It is a vote against Bush. It is also, however, a vote against Kerry, who is the only candidate with a realistic chance to unseat Bush. So voting for Nader undermines the cause and I wouldn't recommend it, but you can't accuse Naderites of "voting for Bush."

I know this is nothing groundbreaking, but I finally found the words to express my opinion on this issue, so I felt compelled to share.

[JVS]

1. Sounds reasonable

[lapfog_1]

2. Uhh, I don't think you have looked at this enough

First assume that only Bush and Kerry were running, who would you
pick?

Now, the vote for Nader is now a vote AGAINST your choice above,
(or, if you prefer, a vote FOR the loser of your choice above).

Staying home on election day is the same thing.

Simple, no?

[freetobegay]

5. Be careful you just might fry some brains with that logic

Only because it it's true. :hi:

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

6. Sure I have!

As I said in my above post, a vote for Nader is a vote against every other candidate running. That cannot be disputed. I stressed that I would not suggest voting for Nader if one really desires Bush to be ousted....but I think it's a cheap shot to say that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

[JVS]

7. I agree

Especially because it is dishonest of people to claim that when they know that it is better for people to vote for Nader than to vote for Bush.

[lapfog_1]

15. Sure it can

As I said, a vote for Nader is a vote FOR the loser of your choice
of Kerry v. Bush.

I think if most people who want to vote for Nader examine his
positions on topics versus those of Bush and Kerry, they will
find that Kerry comes closer than Bush. In other words, even
though Kerry is not anti-globalization enough, or anti-corporate
enough, or even pro-environment enough... Kerry is closer to
them on their beliefs than Bush. So a vote for Nader, or even
a "I'll stay home and not vote" is really a vote for Bush.

Of course, if their second choice is Bush, then a vote for Nader
is really a vote for Kerry.

The assumption here (which is valid) is that Nader has zero chance
to win. If Nader and Bush and Kerry were all polling at 25 to 30
percent, with 10 to 25 percent undecided, then this logic falls
apart, and a vote for Nader would be a vote FOR Nader and no one else.
But that isn't the situation, and it won't be the situation come
November.

[billbuckhead]

3. Any vote that doesn't help defeat Bush is a vote for Bush

Since we have a winner takes all system.

[LWolf]

20. Bullshit.

Only a vote for Bush is a vote for Bush.

The rest is spin. Campaign rhetoric. Propaganda. Whatever.

I'm voting for Kerry because ousting Bush is a big priority. But I'm gonna need hipwaders, or worse, to wade through this sort of crap before we're done. It's hard to get excited about voting for someone whose supporters use what, imo, amounts to dishonest tactics.

A vote for someone other than Bush or Kerry is a protest vote; a protest against something, rather than a vote for either. I don't know how the conservatives upset with Bush stack up against the progressives upset with the DNC/Kerry; 3rd party votes might hurt, or they might not. The honest thing to do about it would be to acknowledge that some progressives won't support your platform with their vote, and move on. They aren't scapegoats. Their POV is just as valid as yours. And their choice in the voting booth just as valid. If you want to court their vote, do it with the issues, or don't, and acknowledge that you aren't willing to swing their way.

This sort of thing doesn't convince people who are considering a 3rd party vote to vote for Kerry. It just offends them, and makes them more likely to stay away. Using your logic, I could say that every time a democrat spouts the "vote for ___________ is a vote for bush" crap, it loses another vote for Kerry. It's just as valid a point, imo.

It also does a really great job of chasing those voters right out of the voting booth. What percent of registered voters do you expect to cast a vote in November?

[billbuckhead]

32. In a zero sum game, SOMEONE has to win, to make sure it isn't Bush

the most powerful way to do that is vote for a vastly less evil candidate who can win the election. It's 99.9% ceratain the next president will be either a Republican or a Democrat, probably Bush or Kerry. The only actual choice viv a vis throwing Bush out is to vote for Kerry.

[LWolf]

39. Yes.

That's one reason why I'm voting for Kerry. While he doesn't "fit" my positions on many issues, he is clearly the superior of the two candidates. And evicting Bush is my first priority.

But if your POV has more to do with what you are for, then what you are against, you might withhold your vote from both major candidates, if neither of them are "for" the direction you want to see the country go. It's a valid point of view, and a valid choice. It's not the choice I've made; but I don't see anything constructive coming from portraying those who do as Bush supporters. It sure isn't going to change their minds about voting for Kerry. It's more likely to offend them, and to drive them, and their votes further away.

There are more constructive ways to interact with fellow progressives who have a different set of priorities than you...or I.

[louis c]

49. Every election with a sitting President

is a referendum on the Incumbent.

The only candidate that has a chance to defeat Bush is John Kerry.

The Ballot, then, realistically looks like this


Bush (Yes, leave him in)
Kerry (No, throw Bush out)
Nader (Not sure, Not voting)


Very Simple

[Zynx]

4. By not contributing to the vote total that could defeat Bush, you are in

effect contributing to his victory, hence you are voting for him though not contributing to his vote total.

8. So is Not voting

a vote for Bush or a vote for Kerry or a vote for Nader?

[JVS]

9. Not voting is definitely better than voting for Bush

Suppose you have volunteered to drive 3 other people to the polls. If all three other people get into the car and say they are going to vote for Bush then if you want Kerry to win, you are better off taking them for a long ride and never getting them to the polls. If all 3 of them say they want to vote for Nader, you might as well take them to the poll because at least they won't counteract your vote for Kerry. So we can see that a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. You Would Be Better Off Driving Three Kerry Voters To The Polls

NT

12. In the best of all possible worlds

nt

[JVS]

13. They tell you when they get into the car

NT

11. well put

:)

[lapfog_1]

17. Go back and read my first post on the subject.

Not voting or voting for Nader is the same thing.

A vote for Nader is a vote FOR the loser of the choice Kerry V. Bush.

Simple.

A vote for Nader is NOT automatically a vote for Bush, but it is
if your second choice is Kerry.

If your second choice is Bush, then a vote for Nader is a vote for
Kerry.

Freepers want you to THINK that voting for Nader is voting FOR Nader,
because they BELIEVE that most that vote for Nader would, if Nader
wasn't running, vote for Kerry, which is why Ralph is getting
all of those republican signatures on petitions to allow him on
the ballot, and the rumored campaign donations and TV time with
Hannity, etc. They have no intention of voting for Nader, they
simply hope that Nader siphons off 4 percent of the vote from Kerry.
It made the difference last time, and they hope to repeat.

As Randi said in her interview with Ralph, "We can't afford you
(Ralph)".

Anyone but Bush is a nice slogan, but won't cause Bush to exit
the White House. So now it is, better Kerry than Bush. That's
reality.

[supperDem]

14. Perhaps it is time for control limits on the Democrat mean

We need to define exactly how far a Democrat is allowed to deviate from the median Democrat that has been defined...if in fact this median has been defined.

[West Coast Democrat]

16. We need to define exactly how lame a post can be......

and then decide how much a post can deviate from that defined median.

[supperDem]

18. Best we should first determine positive intent

And then not allow long-festering trouble to be sneaked out in the bright lights when those that are shaded against it be deprived.

[West Coast Democrat]

19. We're not deprived of long-festering trouble....

in these parts.

[supperDem]

21. Which parts would those be?

So far all I see is a mis-spelled XanthaS hounding me around the board. Better if we make up now and nip this misunderstanding in the bud to die a decent death.

[ulysses]

22. "the median Democrat"?

What the fuck is a "median Democrat" and who gets to define it?

[supperDem]

23. exactly my point

I see here every day the limits exceeded of both upper and lower control limits of the proverbial "democrat". Who sets these limits and exactly who sets the mean?

[ulysses]

24. wtf are you talking about?

"control limits"? the "mean"?

:silly:

[supperDem]

25. Statistics 101

Try google...

[ulysses]

27. pfft.

Whatever.

[West Coast Democrat]

40. Don't worry...He doesn't even know what he's talking about...

He's just going around spouting off a bunch of important-sounding words of which he doesn't understand the meaning (I guess he takes after his prez!) Anyway....he's been tombstoned.

[ulysses]

48. figured he was a troll

Probably a reincarnation of JustSwill. :hi:

[no name no slogan]

29. Unfortunately, it's not that easy

Unlike the parties in parliamentary democracies, there is no "official" membership rule in the Democratic Party. You become a Democrat by simply claiming to be one. Hence, Lyndon LaRouche is a Democrat, as is Zell Miller and Russ Feingold.

There is no way to impose a "litmus test" to determine who has "strayed" from the party. Unlike the parties in Europe, for example, there are no "sanctions" against members who stray from the party platform-- consequently, the platform is mostly meaningless in the Repub and Democratic parties.

If the member serves as an elected official, s/he may be excluded from the party's caucus in whichever body the member serves, but that still does NOT mean the member is excommunicated from the party.

There's not a practical way to "enforce" party loyalty, nor should there be in our type of system. Most Americans wouldn't stand for it.

[LimpingLib]

26. What bugs me the most about the Nader detractors....

... is that they keep saying how important this election is and we must stick together. They say it like they are genuine progressives who think Kerry is a good first baby step in a new era of improvment for progressive causes (ie people causes).

I want to take their words at face value and will do as they bid and vote for Kerry BUT Im sure most of them have already made their mind up to support people like Edwards ,Clinton , or Clark (a downgrade to DLC levels in each case) in 2012 even if the GOP is weakened totaly by then.


I simply think most in our party are a bunch of bandwagon riders ( finally.. FINALLY.. I think the John McCain party has ended THANK GOD) and will start to decide between crown princes ( like Johny Sunshine Edwards)and princesses.

We really need to hold Kerrys feet to the fire and agree that post November 2004 we will NEVER again vote just to win but will vote on issues even if it means loosing some elections (and if we wouldnt be splintered by the bandwagon riders then we wouldnt loose so lets put the blame where it belongs when we loose).

EDIT: And just to point out , getting a canidate like Kerry wasnt so bad this time. Considering we had several canidates trying to sell themselves as progressives and sucking the air out of whatever real progressives we had in the race (who werent attractive credible canidates anyway this time), its no suprize that we progressives couldnt stand behind anybody this time. If we had just 1 genuine progressive to choose from (who wasnt a twirp or somebody badly damaged)then I think we all would have united and choose him. The DLC has interferred in so many primarys that we have a very small progressive bench (those who hold major offices) in our party so its going to be tough finding a good canidate for the future.

[ScreamingMeemie]

28. I have to disagree...to a point.

When Nader willingly allowed the GOP to help him gather signatures here in Michigan and elsewhere...he became part of team Bushco in my opinion. He is playing a game, one that no one should partake in.

[mzmolly]

30. Excellent point.

:hi:

[ScreamingMeemie]

31. Hi mzmolly! How anyone can gloss that over is beyond me...

He lost any shred of respect I might have had for him at one time with that move. :hi:

[LimpingLib]

33. That was Naders "move" ? WTF??!!!!

This bull sh%% just never ends.

The only thing about Nader worthy of mentioning about is his non-chilantn attitude (on signatures and everything else) which is moving him nowhere. He has bent over backwords for Kerry in the most amazing way and frankly I hope he has some prep H. That's bad enough as he has muzzled himself from pushing Kerry in a more progressive direction. He also took an attitude that signatures would just fall into place and that combined with Democratic 3rd world tactics has prevented him from making the ballot.

I tired of having to respond to the same lies all the time , I better accept the fact that they will be repeated endlessly like a prejudiced broken record.

[ScreamingMeemie]

34. Not bullshit, not bullshit at all. An honest candidate, interested in true

change, would never accept that sort of help. For any reason. I'm not prejudiced, just rational. It's wrong, wrong, wrong, and it has lessened his credibility. Stumble away, Mr Nader, stumbe away...

[LimpingLib]

35. Politicians are principled in what world now?

I thought the whole line by Nader detractors was that politics is a dirty sport and thus it make Democrats dirty tricks on 3rd partys like Nader acceptable?

So its o.k. for Democrats to knowingly be corrupt and disenfranchise voters but if something 100% out of Naders control happens to not be totally kosher but somewhat benefits him (he says it hasnt helped him much for the record, hard to deny since he is only on about 20 states ballot) , its all his fault and he needs to hid under a rock?


I look forward to seeing your same zeal directed at our canidates returning 90% of special interest money when they raise record amounts of campaign dollars?


(waiting)

[ScreamingMeemie]

36. Show me the dirty tricks in Detroit??? Nader portrays himself as

better than and above the rest. He is no different. Strike that, he's worse, because he knows exactly what he is doing.

[LimpingLib]

37. If you want Nader to vanish (and he is sadly) then....

... why are you so worried about him? Hes an issue?

If you want to clean up politicians then start with those in power and DONT STOP (but that advice will be saved till you actualy start living up to your strong comments).

Should Kerry go away with all the money he has raised which much of it (like all politicians)being money from questionable characters and organizations?

[ScreamingMeemie]

38. Run a search on some of my comments here Limping.

I am all for accountability. I am all for Kerry owning up to participating in insider politics, and I am all for Nader dropping out. We have no voice in my opinion, but I will work for change. But no, Nader isn't going to do it for us. He's as complicit as the rest.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. Is it 100% out of Nader's control that he takes Republican money?

[LimpingLib]

46. Why do these comments get directed at me?

Here comes another fruitless effort..............bla .....bla ...bla


Uh...Hum..cough..cough (clearing throat)

Let see....where to begin(?).

Did you know Kerry's wife is a Republican? And just incase Im not up to date and she switched , I can assure you she was when Weld ran for Kerrys seat and I think she still is. What does that tell you about Kerry? (the anwser is nothing)

Now, what is Nader supposed to do , get a $500 background check run on every donation he gets? Or would a background checking firm that only charges $500 be indicitive of a "pathetic effort" on Naders part since he doesnt use a really *good* firm that charges $1000 but goes for the lowest bidder? That would have been the max contribution limit before the campaign finance reform lifted it to $2000 . Would require a hefty donation just to make a net gain in his campaign war chest,which resembles more a cigar box than a chest thank to Naders views not exactly being as inviting to corperate donors as Kerry's or Bush's views apparantly. And BTW most corperations donate to BOTH partys and campaigns. Yikes no need for a background check there.

Now the real kicker , background checks dont and cant tell you the voting paterns of a person , but party registration can be found out.

Next pointless hippocritical accusation please?

[Hippo_Tron]

50. He doesn't have to do background checks, we know who they are

I'm not expecting Nader to give back every $25-50 contribution that the freepers send him but when he gets $2000 contributions from known Republicans like Richard J Egan http://people-link5.inch.com/pipermail/portside/Week-of-Mon-20040628/006156.html
I'd think that he'd return them if he had any integrity whatsoever.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. Nader takes REPUBLICAN money

He is the enemy at this point.

[gulliver]

43. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

Don't be ridiculous. If you are left wing (are you?) and you vote for Nader, you are voting directly for a hermit lunatic, and effectively for Bush.

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

44. It's not ridiculous.....

if you read what I wrote I imply that it is not wise to vote for Nader in this election and nowhere do I suggest that I will be voting for Nader. I think Nader is an ego-maniac who has made a terrible terrible choice to exercise his right to run for office. I do not like the term "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." It's cheap propagranda. A vote for Nader is just that; a vote for Nader. It's also a vote against everyone else he is running against....which in turn can undermine either candidates ultimate goal of winning the presidency.

The only vote for Bush, is a literal vote for Bush. I am a Kerry supporter, and I have been since he was still mulling over whether or not to run for president...but using cheap catch phrases implying roundabout votes for Bush is an absolute waste of time, because what we should be doing is not telling people why they shouldn't be voting for Nader, but why they SHOULD be voting for John Kerry.

[LiveWire]

45. This is only true in swing states...

I know California will go to the Dems. I know that NY and many new england states will go to. It really doesnt matter who I vote for in my state of CA, I know all my electorial votes will go to Kerry (which I dont mind at all). However, placing your anger on those who would vote for Nader is unfounded. A vote is a vote. If I want to skribble in my name on the voters ballot, it is well within my rights. Americans, traditionally, hate to be told what to do. This goes for voting as well. Telling me or some other left wing liberal that they are wasting their vote will only galvanize their resolve.

[LimpingLib]

47. Exit polls told a different story. (for the 1000th time)

47% of Nader voters said they would have voted for Gore , thats not even half based on the mathmatical laws we follow.

53% dont fit the now famous repetitive description you gave in you title in the form of the Ad Hominem quote that is now firmly repeating itself in all our heads like every bad lyric once we have to suffer listening to it enough.

Anyway 21% would have voted for Bush and 32% would have voted for neither.

Editing to go further (to go further toward wasting even more of my time).......

Do the Math and 1.3% of Naders 2.7% came from Gore but 0.6% came from Bush so that makes 0.7% net taken from Gore of the 2.7%. BUT to say its a "vote for Bush" would mean its only about 0.35% then because the 0.7% is what Kerry (or Gore) looses but to apply it toward Bush then you have to split it in half to apply for the "vote for Bush" which would imply a "+" for Bush and a "-" for Kerry (or Gore). So that means a race where Kerry (or Gore) would have gotten 50.3% and Bush 49.7% without the evil Nader but then when you put the villanous Nader in the mix then your "vote for Bush" applys and you swing the race. BUT remember if the hypothetical race gave Gore(or Kerry) 50.4% and Bush 49.6% then it wouldnt swing it enough.

To make matter more complicated (and I left reading other threads to edit my post , talk about stupid , I make things complicated on myself constantly responding to this crap)there were 3rd partys and the next 2 strongest took more than 0.7% combined (constitution and libertarian) so dont ask me to figure where their votes came from , I dont kow of any exit polling data but Id say they make the net 3rd party impact about 0.2%-0.4% of a loss to Gore which when you split in half means the total 3rd party impact maybe swung the race from Gore to Bush if Gore only had a 50.1%-49.9% hypothetical win over Bush in our fantasy world we keep living in.

To make matters even more complicated , you have to realize Naders total vote will be lower this time than last so that narrows it even more.

To make matters even more complicated YET you have to wonder why all these Nader bashing wastes of time accusations, that consume so much time and energy from us all, dont lead the individual who levels the whinning charges at Nader over his messing up our dream world 1on1 Presidential race numbers to just use all their energy toward convincing their nearly equal whinning Democratic politicians in power to fight for Instant Runnoff Voting.