hes got my vote.

Fuckin' a. He's only going to take votes from the Democrats. This could be McCain's ticket to the White House.

I really don't understand the guy. He's obviously passionate about his beliefs, which sway to the liberal side, but he doesn't seem to care that his inclusion in the races only help those with views furthest away from his. He seems much too smart to act so ignorant.

the spread between BO and mccain is going to be far greater than nader's votes. i wouldnt worry too much about that.

nader has a strong platform that deserves to be considered. he shouldnt not run just out of fear that some other guy might win instead of someone else, neither of whom are repressenting his own values enough.

there should be atleast 3 real choices (when we get three, the 4th will be easier, and the 5, etc). the way cmpaign finance law works, along with debates and whatnot, its a building process to become truly viable. the green party has built over years, if nader didnt run it would have been like starting over.

if democrats dont want nader taking votes, then they should assume his platform--- which is why ill be voting green. what i care about, above all, is the environment. i feel like voting for the green party is the only way my vote really counts.

Uhh... Nader and the Green Party parted ways in 2004. Now it's the:

Party
Of
Ralph
Nader

The Green candidates these days are the like of Cynthia McKinney... ugh.

The Greens talk all about grassroots organizing, but like to start from the top down, which is about as un-grassroots as it gets. They need to focus their efforts to win in small areass where they can win, sustain, then expand, if they want to stay true to their principles.

huh. that i did not know. i guess ill have to put some thought into this one.

why did they split?

The environmental platform would be better served fighting the special interests fight, as that's where their chief opposition, big industry, continues to win. I've heard the arguments that Nader shouldn't decide against running just because he's worried he'll take votes from the closer of his ideological matches, but that just doesn't fly with me. That's the exact reason he shouldn't run. If he wants change, then this is the worst thing he can do. To me, it's just an arrogance or ignorance at this point. I can't decide which.

Nader lost me when the Republicans started to support him in 2004 to take away votes from Kerry.

Nader is a main reason Dubya "beat" Gore in 2000 to even get in office. You think Gore, "Mr. An Inconvenient Truth", may have made the environment a major issue as President? To me, that alone means Nader has done more to hurt the agenda than help.

gore lost because hes an incompetent politician. he was a soft candidate by the dems, who couldnt even beat a lightweight in bush.

he made strategic blunders in his campagin (not deploying clinton more) and probably would have been a rather mediocre president.

the idea that someone shouldnt run because theyre hurting a cause that is less offensive to them than the alternative is just loser talk to me. the two party system is a terrible way for democracy to function.

whether republicans choose to exploit this is of little consequence to me. thats on them.

he made strategic blunders in his campagin (not deploying clinton more) and probably would have been a rather mediocre president.
Not deploying Clinton made sense, unfortunately. While Clinton's overall popularity was high, it was heavily skewed toward states Dems were in no danger of losing. Clinton's popularity in swing states was weak, 30-odd%, and those people who didn't like him personally were who broke for Bush:

http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=ar
http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=fl
http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=nh

Apart from that, I agree -- Gore wasn't a great campaigner.


the idea that someone shouldnt run because theyre hurting a cause that is less offensive to them than the alternative is just loser talk to me. the two party system is a terrible way for democracy to function.
Agreed, and that's why I'd love to see third parties (Green, Libertarian, etc.) push for a national election system. Take over those boring county clerk and secretary of state positions and operate a national organization that runs all elections they control consistently.

I think we all know how close Gore was to being president, and Nader being involved kept him from winning. I appreciate the idealism of a three-party system, but in reality, all he's doing is hurting the candidate with closest ideology of what he's fighting for. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the intelligence of him joining the race.

gore lost because hes an incompetent politician. he was a soft candidate by the dems, who couldnt even beat a lightweight in bush.

he made strategic blunders in his campagin (not deploying clinton more) and probably would have been a rather mediocre president.
the idea that someone shouldnt run because theyre hurting a cause that is less offensive to them than the alternative is just loser talk to me. the two party system is a terrible way for democracy to function.

whether republicans choose to exploit this is of little consequence to me. thats on them.

Better than the unmitigated disaster we have had for the last eight years.

On Gore not being a "great campaigner", neither was Gdub. Gdub was probably more likeable, though, I'll give him that.

Howevah, Gdub and Gore ran at the height of the Republican monopoly of the press and airwaves. The Repulsican viewpoint was everywhere, and people seemed generally to be suffering from "Clinton Fatigue". I thought Gore did relatively well considering all that. Sheet, he won the popular vote!!! Bush had to wrangle the Florida thing with his friign' brother in control there!

You know who it was? Them fucking Buckeyes. Ohio ruins everything.

This helps Reps a lil bit, imo. Remember McCain is not getting the far right vote, he getting more of middle America, so Nader won't help as much for McCain as he would for a Romney type, imo.

Bloomberg would hurt the Reps though. He may still get in.

On Gore not being a "great campaigner", neither was Gdub. Gdub was probably more likeable, though, I'll give him that.

Howevah, Gdub and Gore ran at the height of the Republican monopoly of the press and airwaves. The Repulsican viewpoint was everywhere, and people seemed generally to be suffering from "Clinton Fatigue". I thought Gore did relatively well considering all that. Sheet, he won the popular vote!!! Bush had to wrangle the Florida thing with his friign' brother in control there!

You know who it was? Them fucking Buckeyes. Ohio ruins everything.

i thought gore was running only on clinton's record pretty much. people were upset with the man, but everyone recognized his tenure as a successful time in america. gore's goal was to claim the success and not the scandal.

not easy, but not exactly the worst position to run for president (would have been alot easier without monica L).

the republicans were indeed energized, but had gore achieved his mission more successfully, or even found his own voice (like he did with AIT) bush was such a lightweight that gore probably would have won fairly easily.

the reason why bush won 2 terms is because the dems had terrible candidates both years. some might even use the word 'unelectable'. i dont like bush, but the man is atleast decent on the campaign trail.

Bush's campaign handlers >>> Gore/Kerry's campaign handlers

Gore appeared to be a HUGE douche, Bush appeared to be less of one.

What I feel happened in 2000 was that the American people became spoiled with cheap gas prices, soaring stocks, low unemployment etc... and they fell for the "bring honor and dignity to the white house" crap. They wanted cake with their ice cream. Now they have neither.

Nader is a tool. I hope he gets Pinto'd.

any system that discourages the supperior infavor of an inferior is doomed to fail.

ralph nader is the ultimate populist, fighting for the people's cause.

lobbyists are so far up the dems and republican's asses that its hard to say that system is working anymore. or atleast, working the way its supposed to be.

obama is running as some sort of reform candidate, and i think he will, to a point. but his change wont even register to what nader would do if he were elected.

people are so bought into this false choice between republicans and democrats that it doesnt bother them that these guys have made a million and one compromises and that their 'representatives' hardly represent their interests at all.

geerussell, why is nader a tool? was it his fight against the auto industry to force them to build cars that wouldnt roll over at any moment? his fight for cleaner water to drink and cleaner air to breath? etc, etc.

i feel like people complaining about nader, a guy that has spent his life fighting for the everyman, running for office is equivalent to slaves complaining about the guy who's trying to emancipate them.

why wouldnt you want him to atleast try?

Nader has the same problem Gore does. Both are superlative and passionate journalists, and that's what they should be doing. Both have their moments politically, but just aren't great politicians. Nader hasn't ever held elected or appointed office, but he's all too eager to take potshots on those who have.
Remember, there's a couple other branches of government. I imagine some big veto-proof majorities and very little getting done with a Nader presidency.

right. but thats along the lines of the dems and republicans controlling congress like they do today.

same goes ron paul. pretty much any candidate who goes against the system would really only create grid lock (in ron paul's case, he'd probably be thrilled).

it just shows how far we have to go. i think in our life times we'll get beyond the two party system, but it certainly wont be this election, or the next.

Gore appeared to be a HUGE douche, Bush appeared to be less of one.

Gore was SUCH a douche that more Americans voted for him. Yeah, I can see your point there.

Touche