If Ralph stays in, don't do what DOESN'T work!

[Ken Burch]

This is what doesn't work, as 2004 proved:

1)Pissing away a million dollars on court challenges to Ralph's ballot lines. All that did was make it a point of honor for the guy to stay in, because he would have looked like he was caving in to bullies if he'd withdrawn in the midst of that. Don't spend money on useless tactics, ok folks?

2)Abusing and insulting people who say they support the guy. Again, you don't convert people by bullying them.

3)Refusing to adopt any of his agenda. We should at least take the guy's stands on foreign policy and healthcare. The only people who'd be upset would be people who were never going to vote for us anyway.

4)Walking up to Naderites with a celphone cam and taping ourselves saying "booga booga booga" to them. All this does is make the person who does the booga boogaing look like an idiot and the Naderites don't even get it that they're being insulted.

The idea is, treat people who are sympathetic to the idea's the Ralphster talks about(ideas which should be in our platform anyway)as people we could possibly win over. Yes, the hard core won't swing over, but at least you can avoid provoking them into working harder against us.

The hard line and the sneer don't work. Dialog and engagement can. It's not as emotionally satisfying, but in the end it's more effective. Agreed?

Let's win. And let's win be fighting hard and fighting decently, not acting like thugs.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Are we allowed to circulate the fact that he's a piece of Republican sh*t? :-) nt

[pbca]

3. Only if you want to look silly

Hillary is more of a threat to the Dems in the general election than Nader is.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. Really. Look at 2000 and say that with a straight face. nt

[pbca]

7. Nader didn't take a single vote away from Gore

The people that voted for him weren't going to vote Dem anyway - get over it. Bush stole the election, Nader didn't (I'm guessing that if Nader stole the election things would have gone differently the last 8 years).

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. Oy vey. Let's drop it ok? I'm not going to start a debate with someone who thinks Nader did

nothing wrong. :puke:

[pbca]

26. Sure, that's fine - sorry to have offended you

But, I don't think he did anything wrong.

[Popol Vuh]

35. To slander

someone who runs as a none Dem or Repub because they might take votes away from one of the other candidates is IMO political bigotry, an affront on our country's core principles and an attempt to limit voters choices so that the person they like will have a better chance.

I am sorry but I find that shameful.. :puke:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

43. Shameful is to take actions that hurt the weakest in our country, then pretend you're a good person

That's what shameful is. Nader did that. His supporters defended him.

[The Stranger]

55. Do you have some personal experience with Nader?

Just curious because your posts regarding him appear to be very, very personal.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

57. I don't know him personally but I used to admire him.

Perhaps that's why I hate the asshole so intensely. To see him go from someone who did good, to a complete lying asshole who does the opposite of what he preaches, AND doesn't give a flying @#$# if he hurts the neediest in this country, that's quite a long way.

[The Stranger]

65. Perhaps you feel as if he betrayed you and his admirers.

I can understand that. But I can't help but think you may be taking it a little bit personally. My sense of it is that Ralph Nader isn't running for President just to spite you.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

83. You think? I think he's running to spite not just me, but all Democrats

He wants to make sure to screw this country totally and bring it to despair, just to get back at Democrats like me, who vote Democrat. In my book, he's a walking, talking anus.

[The Stranger]

85. That isn't really a rational statement.

Nader may be many things, but it is irrational to think he is running to spite you personally and because he hates Democrats.

I think that Ralph Nader is about Ralph Nader -- and certainly that has far more to do with his running for President than you personally or even the Democratic Party.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

86. It sounds irrational because Nader *is* an irrational asshole nt

[ProudDad]

77. It would be refreshing if you knee-jerk Nader Haters

had a factual leg to stand on.

But, I guess it's more fun to just hate, ain't it...

Hell hath no fury, right?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

84. Oh you're right. I should just luv 'im up. He's so kind. Why butter wouldn't melt in his mouth!

Such a tender creature he is. :puke:

[War Pigs]

39. surely you jest. Yea, I can see where the ultra populist,

green movement crowd would see the chimp as a better 2nd choice than Gore? WTF?? If the 95,000 who voted for Nader in Florida (2000) don't see dead and crippled bodies in their dreams (both U.S. and Iraqi, care to count??) they are either high or delusional. I won't ever get over it, and neither should you.

[pbca]

45. Sorry you're anti-democracy

don't really know how to help you though. (don't try to deny it, your comments and thoughts on the matter are completely anti-democratic)

[ProudDad]

78. Get over it

Gore has...

[iamthebandfanman]

74. there was fraud

nader was irrelevant

[Virginia Dare]

87. Mr. Irrelevance tries for further irrelevance..

but we're supposed to cheer his irrelevance on for the sake of Democracy? None of this makes any sense whatsoever.

[jeffrey_X]

91. FACT: More registered Dems voted for Bush than Nader in Florida in 2000

eom

[OrrenBoyle]

14. Hillary and Bloomberg.

If Bloomberg runs Barak Hussein Obama can write off the Jewish vote. We might even lose it forever.

[Ken Burch]

28. If Bloomburg runs, we have to make sure that any DLC Dem senator or congressman

who backs him in the fall gets punished. Like we should've done to the Dixiecrats who campaigned for Lieberman against Lamont in the fall.

[Virginia Dare]

88. Hillary Clinton is not going to bail on the Democratic Party..

what are you smoking?

[Ken Burch]

6. Sure.

Attack him as a person and a candidate all you want. It's the supporters and the ideas we need to be respectful of.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. Respectful of Nader? How? How is anyone going to be respectful of a liar?

Don't count on me for that.

[Ken Burch]

22. I said respectful of his supporters, not of him.

reread my post.

The supporters don't deserve the anger Ralph deserves.

[War Pigs]

41. You mean people who changed this country for the worse in

virtually every way? That will probably take a generation to fix? Friends don't let friends support fringe candidates in close elections. I don't expect the 2000 election Fla. Nader nuts to commit mass suicide, but a self-imposed sterilization program would make me feel better. The national blood and treasure is squarely on their hands. Rationalize all you want, those votes were either uninformed (didn't know aout the close election, highly unlikely) or purely idealistic.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

42. Why not if they agree with him and he's doing something wrong? nt

[sepulveda]

62. i feel the exact opposite

i don't resent nader for 2000 or for running now.

i think those who vote for him or did so are responsible for their action.

nader has no power. the voters have the power. if voters choose/chose to vote for him, it is their action that hurt the dems they would otherwise vote for, not nader's action.

i see it like blaming mcdonald's for obesity.

big macs don't force their way down people's throats. people make the choice, they accept the consequence.

we KNEW gore/bush would be somewhat close in 2000. anybody who threw away a gore vote to vote for nader is responsible for their vote. each person gets 1 vote. nader doesn't get any more votes than nader supporter X did in florida.

every single one of those nader voters could have made the right choice. they chose not to. nader is not to blame.

[Virginia Dare]

89. Nader ran because he claimed to see virtually..

no difference between Gore and Bush. I assume that is why his supporters voted for him too. Can we now see how utterly stupid and ridiculous that notion was? If all of those people had simply worked to keep Bush and his neocon war criminals out of the White House, we might be in a hell of a lot better position today than we are now. If fact I KNOW we would be.

[pbca]

2. I said that earlier

The vast majority of the people who vote for Nader weren't going to vote D anyway, it's like vote "None of the Above" or "Present"

Personally, once he has the nomination, I think that Obama should meet with Nader just to be friendly and see if there's some common ground. Be friendly and inclusive and maybe some people who were going to vote "None of the Above" will change their mind at the last minute - put a check beside Obama in the voting booth and then tell their friends they voted Nader.

[ProudDad]

79. I'd vote D

if a real "d" were nominated!

The last real "d" who ran was shut out of the laughable, so-called debates by the corporate shills...

[Virginia Dare]

90. So these people cannot see one modicum of difference..

between having a McCain Presidency or an Obama Presidency? How delusional is that?

[Deja Q]

4. To each point:

1. Possibly.

2. But getting people on your side isn't what matters. Being a pompous, snot-nosed, self-righteous thug is much more fun.

3. What is his agenda? What's the agenda of the other candidates?

4. Nobody's perfect.

[Ken Burch]

18. The "agenda"(which didn't originate with Ralph, but was possibly given more awareness through him)

is, broadly

1)Sharply reining in corporate control over the economy and the political process;
2)A significantly less militarist role for the U.S. in the world;
3)Electoral reform(which I would argue is in our own party's interest, since the EC is biased against us and historically we've picked up most of our better ideas from smaller parties who had the ability to create them).

McCain's agenda, of course is a complete rejection of the above, combined with what will be desperate anilingus administered to the "Christian" right.

Obama and Clinton's ideas are vaguely somewhere in between, better than a kick in the head but still to amorphous and too tied to the limitations the party needless accepted in the DLC 90's.

We need to push the Democratic Party into truly representing the populist working-class Rainbow majority.

[OrrenBoyle]

8. With Ralph in and Congress at 18% Approval We're Doomed.

If we attack Ralph we look undemocratic and risk losing votes because of hypocrisy. If we don't we let hundreds of thousands of votes
go poof, or Green anyway. There is no good way out of this.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

12. The approval ratings of Congress as a whole are meaningless

Congress always has low ratings. But most people rate their own reps highly. And Democrats are polling double digits higher in terms of preference in Congressional voting.

[OrrenBoyle]

20. The GOP congress had low but better ratings in 2006 and look where it got them.

But my point is with Nader in, there will be more voters looking Green up and down the ballot -
especially since the current congress has low approval. That may make the difference in several
races.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

36. What Green Congess and statewide candidates will they have to choose?

Only in very liberal bastions such as Northern CA and perhaps Vermont and NH are the Greens a significant presence. They will lose resoundingly to the liberal Dems on the ticket there. I guaran-damn-tee you there will be few to no Green candidates for anything here in AZ. Ralph Nader would be hard pressed to get 1000 votes here. I don't think he even got that many in '04.

[Ken Burch]

21. You don't have to attack to keep those votes from going poof or Green.

You can get them by engaging those people and trying to work with what has made them feel so alienated from our party.

That doesn't mean calling Ralph a saint(calling him out personally is fine, and necessary)but insulting people who are sympathetic him doesn't help us.

[LoZoccolo]

9. You are wrong four times.

1. If I recall, Nader got sued by the Democratic Party over the money it took to get him in trouble or something like that. I'd be curious to hear where you got your $1 million figure.

2. It has been documented that the vast majority of people who threaten to vote for Nader don't actually do so. Ritually shaming the terrorists (and they are terrorists) who threaten to unleash policies that they know to be destructive on the general populace due to their dissatisfaciton with the Democrats removes the incentive to do so.

3. Why would we assume that his policies are workable if his activism has not been workable? Has he gotten any of what he's wanted?

4. It was not a cell phone cam; it was a real mini-DV video camera.

[Ken Burch]

24. I stand corrected about the technology in point 4.

Still, it goes without saying that what you did was a pointless waste of time and that the person you did it to didn't get your point.

And the million dollars was reported on NPR as the amount of money the party spent challenging the ballot lines. Clearly, even you would have to agree that that money would've been far better spent on registration drives and GOTV.

[LoZoccolo]

25. If people are still talking about it, it was not a waste of time. n/t

[War Pigs]

44. I wonder why everytime Nader runs the right wingers can't

wait to contribute to his campaign?? That's all you need to know about his role. Pay attention, there's more to life than backing a 1% candidate. And I thought Republicans were purists.

[Ken Burch]

52. I DON'T back a 1% candidate. I back the Dems.

I'm just talking about not repeating past mistakes.

Nothing I've said in this thread hurts our party.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

10. We're talking about like 20 people at this point.

Ralphie got less than a third of the votes in 2004 that he got in 2000, and this was in an election with a substantially higher turnout. 2008 promises to be off-the-charts in terms of the number of people coming out. I predict a 75% turnout, minimum. Nader's presence will have as much effect as a flea fart.

[pbca]

16. Agreed, just look at

The hundreds of thousands of people who are coming out to support Obama - people who've never voted before, or not for a very long time. In many of the Southern States the Dem turnout for the primaries was higher than the Republican. Yes there will be some Nader protest votes, but those are the people who would have stayed home or spoiled their ballots, or voted for some other 3rd party, they are not votes stolen from the Dems and , it can be hoped anyway, if they come out to vote Nader that maybe they'll vote for Dems for other offices.

[Ken Burch]

19. All the more reason not to waste time ranting about his campaign

And obsessively denouncing his supporters.

And all the more reason not to piss away another million dollars in party funds challenging the guy's ballot lines in court.

[Teaser]

11. No, 4 has to stay

there's nothing better.

[LoZoccolo]

27. I don't know if you caught it or not, so here goes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4741665&mesg_id=4741665

[Teaser]

38. awesome

.

[ulysses]

56. ROFL!!!

You know, all this time I'd never caught the video. You really kind of made an ass of yourself there, man. :D

[BlooInBloo]

15. Anyone supporting Nader over the Democratic nominee is a fucking jackass...

... And doubly so if they support Nader because I hurt their feelings.

[Ken Burch]

23. Nobody should support Nader over the Dem nominee.

But you aren't going to stop them doing so with THAT attitude. Got it?

[BlooInBloo]

29. Nothing I do will stop them. They're fucking jackasses.

[Ken Burch]

32. I strongly suspect that nothing you do will help us in the fall.

That is, if you talk to everybody in this tone.

Lighten up if you actually want a Democratic victory.

[BlooInBloo]

34. Voting for the eventual Democratic nominee helps. Duh.

[Ken Burch]

49. I'm with ya on that, Blooster.

We just disagree somewhat on how to get people to do that.

[War Pigs]

46. how about not invading other countries and not giving retro

immunity to the telecoms? would that be an improvement?

[Ken Burch]

53. Yes. That would be a damn big improvement.

n/t.

[sendero]

30. Ralph Nader..

....couldn't be more irrelevant if he crawled into a hole in the desert.

Nobody gives two shits about this little douchebag egomaniac, and nobody is going to make the same mistake of pissing away their vote on him again.

I'm amazed the networks will even give him 10 seconds of face time, after 2000, he is fucking over.

[Ken Burch]

31. Well, I hope you're right.

And the best thing HRC or Obama can do to make sure of that is NOT to "tack to the center" after the convention.

The voters are NOT saying that they will ONLY tolerate a choice between a conservative and somebody who's just barely not conservative and a Scoop Jackson slaughter freak on foreign policy.

[sendero]

33. Obama's

Obama's instincts have carried him through this campaign.

I think he is smart enough to deal with McCain, I really do.

Coming out against NAFTA is a good start for example.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

37. WTF was he doing on MTP?

They better interview Cynthia McKinney, and hell, Lee Mercer while they're at it. Who's the Libertarian gonna be? They better interview that person too.

[NJmaverick]

40. No way to sway the irrational Nader supporters

If they can't see the serious damage he has done to the Country, no rational argument is going to sway them. My loyalty lies with the Dems. Naderites and Republicans, they both are enemies of that party.

[War Pigs]

47. maybe some rendition and waterboarding?? just keep asking:

"what the hell is wrong with you"? of course, the only response is gagging and snot bubbles.

[NJmaverick]

48. A bit of hyperbole, wouldn't you say?

I say treat them like Republicans.

[Lilith Velkor]

54. You mean the way Barack Obama treats Republicans?

I'm sure Nader supporters would be very surprised at getting their asses *kissed* for a change...

[Forkboy]

50. The few people I know who voted for Nader are smart, thoughtful, and care deeply about the country.

Go look in GD-P and tell me you can say the same thing about some of us Dems. :shrug:

[ulysses]

58. you have to be amused, though,

at however many dozens of threads today devoted, in outraged detail, to the man' ego. Weird.

[Forkboy]

60. The Nader threads here have ALWAYS amused me.

:)

[NJmaverick]

64. Personally I am not amused

I feel their pain and outrage. In fact I share it. If it wasn't for Nader we would have no Iraq, no torture, no illegal wire tapping, no 9/11, no Katrina disasterous response, etc

[NJmaverick]

63. How can you be smart and care about the Country

and cast a vote to allow Bush into the White House? That's a contradiction, I can't get over.

[Forkboy]

69. Well,we need deeper thinking than black and white.

Let me ask, what do you think motivated Nader voters? And do you think it's any different from what motivates people to vote for a Dem? In my experience there is no difference at all. None. Nader voters were/are fed up with what they saw, like many, many people in this country. They chose to try something different. And the Gore that ran is NOT the Gore we love now. His political career for the most part was very safe, very timid, and at times not very liberal. Add Lieberman to that mix and I can totally understand why people were ready to try a different way. I barely wanted to vote for those two myself, and did only because I hated Bush 1 so much that the thought of another curdled my blood.I know a lot of people love Clinton and what he did, but he was a very mixed bag to many of us, and people gravitate to those who they feel will help what they believe in. Read the Green party platform sometime and tell me it shouldn't be our platform. Most of it used to be, but now most liberal beliefs get lip service come voting time and that's it. Look how many Dems are terrified to be called a liberal, like it's a dirty word. What do they expect people who not only aren't afraid to be called liberal but proud to be called liberal to do? If you see things that need done desperately in this country, and the people who say they'll help keep backing down after saying they would give that help, what would you do? Keep saying, "Thank you, may I have another?" :shrug:

Hindsight however is 20/20 (or as my friend says, "hindsight is 50/50" lol). It's easy to look back and see that those votes were not helpful for us. But they didn't do it to deliberately screw the country like many want to believe. They aren't selfish, they definitely aren't ignorant, (and a simple perusal will show that DU isn't exactly one to talk about that anyways), and they DO care, whether that manifested itself in a way you can understand or not.

Personally, I don't really like Nader. I think he's ruined what was a valuable and important career by letting his ego take hold with a violent grip that wont let go. But I'll never blame the people who voted for him for the mess we're in. What allowed Bush to get in was the SCOTUS, end of story. It's arrogant to assume those votes belonged to us. In a democracy they have to be earned, and we all have a different measurement for how people do earn our votes. Also, if we're going to talk about the votes let's talk about the thousands of Dems in Florida that voted for Bush. Ever see a SINGLE thread here about that? Me either. We give them a pass because they're one of us, even though they would be equally culpable by the logic you're using to blame all the world's ills on Nader voters. And at least Nader voters went to the left side of the political spectrum. ;) And history doesn't work that simply where A leads directly to B. History isn't a straight line of logical events that fit together like a puzzle. If it were we need to take your logic and go back to the beginning of time and say this lead to this which lead to this which lead to this.Eventually we'd get to Nader. But he didn't arise out of a vacuum.

Lastly, while DU goes into spasms of hate every time Nader's name is mentioned, no one wants to address why he ran in the first place, and why his message resonated, whether the charge of the two parties being the same was true or not. They aren't, but there's areas where they're damn close. Nader represents a huge elephant in the room for us Dems that we seem unable or unwilling to confront, and it will keep haunting us until we address the rightward shift of the party. There will more Naders, and more chances to damage us. If the Dems shifted back to the left we would assimilate a ton of them back into the party, and we could do that without having to compromise our ideals like we've been doing to please right wing voters who vote for us only when it suits them, not because they really share our ideals. Those are the truly selfish people.

[NJmaverick]

70. I am not sure it's an issue of 20/20 hindsight

After all, it was expected to be a tight race. So one had to realize that voting for Nader was almost as bad as voting for Bush.

As for why his message resonated. It's been my experience, that it's easy to misdirect feelings of unhappiness and dissatisfaction. The Republicans have thrived on that trick and Nader used it as well.

[Forkboy]

71. I think there's some merit to your second point.

But that works on all of us, not just Nader voters. What do you think Obama is running on? Change, right? Tapping into our feelings of unhappiness and dissatisfaction. It's what all politicians do, in every party in every election. And there's nothing wrong that, in my opinion. What candidate runs on the "Vote for me because everything is already swell!" platform? :)

[Radical Activist]

76. A lot of them did swing between 2000 and 2004.

[javadu]

51. Give Up on the Naderites --- Here is Why

There are only about 7 to 8 of them left. They don't matter.

[klook]

59. Forty percent of eligible voters didn't vote for a presidential candidate in 2000.

...according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The Democrats need to figure out how to attract more of those people instead of obsessing at the few people who voted for Ralph Nader instead of staying home. (And why do they never get apoplectic about, for example, http://www.politics1.com/wwp2k.htm">Monica Moorehead?)

[mzmolly]

61. Can we apply these standards to McCain as well?

After all, they ARE on the same team.

[ordinaryaveragegirl]

66. Nader is nothing more than a Repug shill in disguise.

We learned this the hard way in 2000. Don't let history repeat itself.

[Kitty Herder]

67. Dont be silly. Nader makes many Dems look like rightwing repugs. nt

[Ken Burch]

68. Avoiding a repeat of 2000 is my whole point.

And yes, Ralph himself is loathesome. I'm talking about how to relate to his remaining voters, a lot of whom we could get,

[VotesForWomen]

72. i hope people here listen to you, but they won't. nt

[txaslftist]

73. Nader is a fool.

He hardly merits attention.

Like when some porn star or stripper runs.

[iamthebandfanman]

75. youre right

and why people hate his ideas because they dont like him dumb founds me. its fine if you dont like him as a person, but like it or not his ideas are progressive and match up with the majority of us here on DU. if people in the party DID actually take the time to take some of his platform, he wouldnt even exsist!

people who blame nader for our loss in 2000 are dillusional.

the election was stolen. so unless ralph was out back throwing away ballots, i dont want to here it.
wake up and stop helping the mainstream wage its war on the left.

[bbgrunt]

80. thank you, Mr. Burch.

[NaturalHigh]

81. Ralph Nader has every right to run.

I would never vote for him, but I fully support his right to get in the race. It's very ironic that so many people who call themselves DEMOCRATS react to Nader in such an undemocratic way by getting their shorts in a knot when he exercises his constitutional right to run.

Chill out people. There will be right-wing independents and libertarians who will take away more votes from the republicans than Nader will take away from the democrats.

[Occam Bandage]

82. Um, actually, we did those in 2004, and he got way way way fewer votes than in 2000.