The Nader Thread

[Marx]

No that was Mike Gravel.

Wow...yet ANOTHER picture I didn't need in my head!

 

[The Senator]

No that was Mike Gravel.

To be fair, he only shows up like that because pants cost more than bourbon, and he can't afford both.

 

[Immortalfire]

He's running! O happy day

 

[DBella]

I was surprised when I heard this last night on the news. Surprised and encouraged. Unfortunately, with the two-party dominance, I doubt very much that he'll win the election. The good part is that, it gives people who won't vote for the ones currently running, representing the two dominant parties, another option. I think they need a challenge from a third party.

 

[Arc-Light]

Bruce Campbell doesn't have the experience. Sure, he led a small, rag tag, bunch of soldiers to victory against a larger, more formidible army (of darkness) but does THAT alone really qualifiy him to be President of the United States? Allow me to answer that with a smiley that will not only convey my skepticism but do so in a smug manner.

However, I will say, Bruce Campbell is young. He should be the runningmate on the Zod 2008 ticket! That would not only get him the experience he needs, it would give America the much needed leadership of an experienced military leader and statesman, General Zod for 8 years! Remember, in 2008, choose to:

t:

Zod a very weak pick, why vote for a silly mortal while you can vote FOR A GOD

 

[comicgirl]

 

[souvlaki]

I was surprised when I heard this last night on the news. Surprised and encouraged. Unfortunately, with the two-party dominance, I doubt very much that he'll win the election. The good part is that, it gives people who won't vote for the ones currently running, representing the two dominant parties, another option. I think they need a challenge from a third party.

"Go ahead! Throw your vote away!"

 

[lemmasaurus]

Ugh. Seriously. A vote for Nader is a vote away from a democratic nominee, and a vote against any kind of change in this country.

 

[StorminNorman]

Nader/Paul would be very damning to Obama.

 

[souvlaki]

Nader/Paul would be very damning to Obama.

Yeah, you're right. They might even get 5% of the vote.

 

[StorminNorman]

Yeah, you're right. They might even get 5% of the vote.

Considering that 5% would be almost entirely of potential Obama supporters - it would be huge.

 

[Ash J. Williams]

Very nice.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Considering that 5% would be almost entirely of potential Obama supporters - it would be huge.

I wouldn't rely to heavily on that, if I were you.

His first "bid" garnered 3 million votes which cost Gore his presidency, and effectively pissed off the Democratic Party as a whole. People are dumb. This is illustrated by the fact that the next time he stepped out there he garnered a measely 500,000 votes. Hardly an indication of the democratic "love" out there for him.

His take on this election will be even less. Mark my words, he will have ZERO impact on the race; most people seem to see him as a divisive attention ****e, and little else.

 

[Marx]

Nader is a good man. He is just given a hard time because people think that he stole the 2000 election from the democrats. Not true. Nader told Gore that he would drop out if Gore would apply a few of Naders views into his own, and Gore basically ignored him. Nader, at the last hour, was about to drop out of the race, but stayed in because of this. I love Gore, but he would be in the White House right now if he wasnt so stubborn.

Nader thinks that he is right all the time, no matter what. (And if you don't adopt his policies then you're just ignorant.) Sounding familiar? There is a current administration that follows this same belief.

 

[Marx]

most people seem to see him as a divisive attention ****e, and little else.

If the shoe fits...

(You forgot to mention egomaniac.)

 

[The Senator]

Look, Nader is quite the flimsy, irrational piece of political fodder out there today, but that doesn't mean he isn't getting in the race for legitimate reasons. He's able to draw a stark, shameless contrast between himself and the other nominees, giving voters a chance to vote for someone who doesn't position his or herself to win over as many votes as possible. I really respect that in him.

 

[Marx]

Look, Nader is quite the flimsy, irrational piece of political fodder out there today, but that doesn't mean he isn't getting in the race for legitimate reasons. He's able to draw a stark, shameless contrast between himself and the other nominees, giving voters a chance to vote for someone who doesn't position his or herself to win over as many votes as possible. I really respect that in him.

And he gets progressively less and less of the vote everytime he decides to run because he has lost all credibility.

 

[The Senator]

And he gets progressively less and less of the vote everytime he decides to run because he has lost all credibility.

Or it's because the media has anointed him a spoiler and the Democrats have upped their efforts to win over any support he once had. If Clinton or Obama fails to appeal to the large, left-win, anti-war, anti-corporation branch of the liberal electorate, then Nader will be able to rise up and take a meager-- though important-- percent of the vote, which could be quite decisive. In 2000, he was "the other guy." In 2004, he was "the evil man who cost Al Gore the election." In 2008, he's the "irrational yet semi-attractive candidate worth voting for if only because I can." His support will probably be bigger than it was last time, but I doubt he'll go much above 1%-- and hopefully the Democrat will be able to have a larger victory over McCain than that.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Look, Nader is quite the flimsy, irrational piece of political fodder out there today, but that doesn't mean he isn't getting in the race for legitimate reasons. He's able to draw a stark, shameless contrast between himself and the other nominees, giving voters a chance to vote for someone who doesn't position his or herself to win over as many votes as possible. I really respect that in him.

He cares nothing about the party's well-being though. What is so respectable about that?

 

[Marx]

Or it's because the media has anointed him a spoiler...

No I'm pretty sure that it's the four previous failed attempts and his unwillingness to let it go. He isn't what he once was, but he refuses to see that.

 

[The Senator]

He cares nothing about the party's well-being though. What is so respectable about that?

Like I said somewhere else, he doesn't have to care about the Democratic Party's well being because he isn't a Democrat.

 

[The Senator]

No I'm pretty sure that it's the four previous failed attempts and his unwillingness to let it go. He isn't what he once was, but he refuses to see that.

First, he only openly campaigned in two of his campaigns (2000 and 2004). The other two were draft movements which he wasn't very active in. Second, the media didn't focus on those first two bids at all, so I don't think he had any credibility to lose there. It wasn't until the 2000 fiasco that the media started referring to him as a spoiler, thereby crapping all over whatever credibility he did have.

 

[Marx]

First, he only openly campaigned in two of his campaigns (2000 and 2004). The other two were draft movements which he wasn't very active in. Second, the media didn't focus on those first two bids at all, so I don't think he had any credibility to lose there. It wasn't until the 2000 fiasco that the media started referring to him as a spoiler, thereby crapping all over whatever credibility he did have.

Openly or not J, this makes number 5. (I know what you're saying about 2000, but the media didn't have to spin anything, people made up their own minds about him.)

 

[The Senator]

Openly or not J, this makes number 5. (I know what you're saying about 2000, but the media didn't have to spin anything, people made up their own minds about him.)

So what? Henry Clay ran for President five times, and that didn't make him any less credible.

 

[Marx]

So what? Henry Clay ran for President five times, and that didn't make him any less credible.

You do have a point there. But Henry Clay and Ralph Nader are far from being in the same category.