Nader in!

[b-diddy]

hes got my vote.

[defrocked]

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.

[b-diddy]

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.

[Uncle Mxy]

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.

[b-diddy]

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

why did they split?

[defrocked]

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.

[MikeMyers]

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

[defrocked]

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.

[b-diddy]

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.

[Uncle Mxy]

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.a...ice=P&state=ar
http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.a...ice=P&state=fl
http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.a...ice=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.