T Nation

Nader Is In

Just saw on the news that Nader is going to run.

Does it matter? Is there enough interest in him for him to be a 3rd party spoiler?

Or is he yesterday’s news and liberal Democrats have nothing to fear from his run?

I don’t think the dissatisfaction is high enough on the far left for him to be relevant this year but I can see another possible (completely far fetched) scenario that would be fun.

What if his entry inspires others on the fence to join in? Maybe a right wing Huckabee type decides to go or a centrist Bloomberg. A Huckabee type would depend on disruption of the center affecting McCain’s coalition rather than anything on the far left. But a Bloomberg type candidate would be looking for disruptions on both ends, with base challenges potentially forcing candidates to retreat from the center even as the general approaches. So a potential chain reaction exist leading to entertainment for all.

The probability of this happening is pretty close to zero, but it would make for a hell of an election. Nader will draw a miniscule number of votes in the out of play states, and even fewer in the states that matter.

I’m done day dreaming.

I think it is far more likely that Ron Paul accepts the nomination of the libertarian party and influences the outcome of this election.

If he manages to take away only 3-4% from what otherwise had been Mc Cains votes Obama is bound to win.

I love Nader, but he is old hat.

The Green Party needs a Barack Obama type to bring their party to the forefront or else they will die a certain death.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I love Nader, but he is old hat.

The Green Party needs a Barack Obama type to bring their party to the forefront or else they will die a certain death.[/quote]

He doesn’t even have the Green Party nomination yet. They currently have about five candidates to choose from, including Nader. I know they fielded somebody else in 2004.

That being said, I agree that Nader is old hat. While some might argue that he helped Bush in 2000, he was irrelevant in 2004 and I think he’ll continue to be a non-factor this November.

I voted for Nader in '00, didn’t like Bush, and wasn’t going to vote for Gore, which is why I disagree with those who say Nader or Paul would take away votes from a certain candidate. If I didn’t vote for Nader, I wasn’t going to vote, and all the other Nader fans I’ve talked to said the same thing.

I still like Nader, he would shake shit up, but he sounds like a broken record these days and some friends of mine who saw him speak recently said he just looked tired and cranky.

The guys gotta give it up. What is this, his fifth try?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
The guys gotta give it up. What is this, his fifth try?[/quote]

Give it up? Do you think Nader is attempting to become the president of the US, or are you just pretending to be ignorant?

[quote]mundele wrote:
That being said, I agree that Nader is old hat. While some might argue that he helped Bush in 2000… [/quote]

Sigh. Old hat? Who is new hat? Is your strongest criticism of Nader that he isn’t new, hip, and trendy?

The tired bit that Nader “helped Bush” has no basis in fact. Nader slammed Bush for his Texas record in 2000, and he did so in a relentless and aggressive manner that Democrats refused to do. The 500 vote difference was exceeded by all third party candidates, not just Nader. And during the Gore’s campain, Nader forced Gore to take more populist positions, and his popularity rose as a result. In the end, Gore ran a mediocre campaign, failing to take even his home state, which candidates almost always manage to win.

The mainstream course of dialog in federal presidential elections is weak and empty. Obama and Clinton fail to distinguish themselves in any meaningful way. Nader brings real ideas to the table and forces change in political discussion. And in his lifetime, he has done more for this country than you can imagine. Please, show some respect.

If Hillary gets the nomination this is excellent for the Republicans - if Obama gets it, probably a non-factor.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I love Nader, but he is old hat.

The Green Party needs a Barack Obama type to bring their party to the forefront or else they will die a certain death.[/quote]

In order to die they need first to have lived.

[quote]Gael wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
The guys gotta give it up. What is this, his fifth try?

Give it up? Do you think Nader is attempting to become the president of the US, or are you just pretending to be ignorant?

[/quote]

I always thought his aim was to give the voters three options, thus, in his mind, ending the two party system (eventually).

His ideas are sound, but at this point he just looks like an old crazy guy. The party needs new blood, a new face for the same ideas.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
His ideas are sound, but at this point he just looks like an old crazy guy. The party needs new blood, a new face for the same ideas.[/quote]

Which party, the Greens? You don’t really think they have a chance, do you? Nader was the best thing that ever happened to that party.

[quote]Gael wrote:
mundele wrote:
That being said, I agree that Nader is old hat. While some might argue that he helped Bush in 2000…

Sigh. Old hat? Who is new hat? Is your strongest criticism of Nader that he isn’t new, hip, and trendy? [/quote]
He’s been running since 1992, and has never really gotten anywhere with it. Honestly, I think people are getting tired of him.

[quote]
The tired bit that Nader “helped Bush” has no basis in fact. Nader slammed Bush for his Texas record in 2000, and he did so in a relentless and aggressive manner that Democrats refused to do. The 500 vote difference was exceeded by all third party candidates, not just Nader. And during the Gore’s campain, Nader forced Gore to take more populist positions, and his popularity rose as a result. In the end, Gore ran a mediocre campaign, failing to take even his home state, which candidates almost always manage to win. [/quote]
First of all, I never said I held that view. Personally, I believe people should vote for whomever they feel is best qualified for the job. Therefore the question of whether he did take votes from Gore is irrelevant. For what it’s worth though, Nader was the most likely of the third party candidates running in FL to take votes from Gore. The others were either conservatives or socialists.

I agree, and would also include McCain with the two you mentioned.

[quote]
Nader brings real ideas to the table and forces change in political discussion. And in his lifetime, he has done more for this country than you can imagine. Please, show some respect.[/quote]
As a consumer advocate he has done a lot for this country. However he is not viable as a presidential candidate. He has never come close to winning anything, and his candidacy announcement every four years is getting to be pretty predictable. While his ideas may be different, I don’t think anyone is really going to pay attention.

I voted for Nader in 2004, and I probably will in November as well, but I don’t think he is going to make much of a stir this year.

Whether you agree with his positions or not, whether you want to age-discriminate on him,
whether you think he’s on cahoots with Bush,

Nader remains an intelligent man with unmatched integrity. At least he’s not a rich kid with a speech impediment, a stone cold calculating biyatch or a pretty boy full of hooey. And if you think he sounds like a broken record, pray tell what McCain is bringing to this election that hasn’t been the party line for almost a decade now.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
If Hillary gets the nomination this is excellent for the Republicans - if Obama gets it, probably a non-factor.[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote]Gael wrote:
mundele wrote:
That being said, I agree that Nader is old hat. While some might argue that he helped Bush in 2000…

Sigh. Old hat? Who is new hat? Is your strongest criticism of Nader that he isn’t new, hip, and trendy?

The tired bit that Nader “helped Bush” has no basis in fact. Nader slammed Bush for his Texas record in 2000, and he did so in a relentless and aggressive manner that Democrats refused to do. The 500 vote difference was exceeded by all third party candidates, not just Nader. And during the Gore’s campain, Nader forced Gore to take more populist positions, and his popularity rose as a result. In the end, Gore ran a mediocre campaign, failing to take even his home state, which candidates almost always manage to win.

The mainstream course of dialog in federal presidential elections is weak and empty. Obama and Clinton fail to distinguish themselves in any meaningful way. Nader brings real ideas to the table and forces change in political discussion. And in his lifetime, he has done more for this country than you can imagine. Please, show some respect.[/quote]

The guy is a Sean Hannity hack put in to steal the election from Barack. Hillary can’t win and the Republicans are terrified of Barack.

Doesn’t matter as Barack will win. He’s what we deserve.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Certainly having the wack job Nader in the race is a good thing for the republicans. He drew about 3 million votes in 2000 garnering almost 3% of the total vote cast.

While his popularity is not nearly as high as it was 8 years ago we can look to him to siphon off votes from whoever the democrats nominate as their candidate.

Certainly even 1 million votes could turn this election toward the republicans.
[/quote]

Again, you’re not paying attention. The vast majority of people who vote for the third party candidate do so because they cannot or will not vote for one of the two major candidates. Most of those 3 million who voted for Nader in 2000 would not have voted at all if Nader wasn’t in the race.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The guy is a Sean Hannity hack put in to steal the election from Barack.
[/quote]

If you knew anything of the man, you would feel quite embarrassed to make statements like this. This is just dumb conspiracy-minded crap.

Look at the language you are using. “Steal the election” ? “Steal” ? If McCain beat Obama, would he be “stealing” ? This pejorative language places third party candidates as second class citizens and implies a sort of ownership of the elections.