I question the strategy of voting for Nader in "safe" Kerry states

[Woodstock]

On edit, I'm clarifying this since some people misunderstood me - I'm talking about "safe states" for Kerry:

For instance, Maryland. That is considered a "safe" Democratic state, ie, a state that we think will go for Kerry. So someone might think, well,

I want Kerry to win so Bush will be gone,

but Kerry will win in Maryland anyway,

so why don't I vote for Nader in protest of Kerry's vote for this or that (or whatever it is that stuck in their craw about Kerry.)

But we now have Diebold machines across the entire state. Is it really a "safe state" after all?

[still_one]

1. You are right

NOTHING SHOULD BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED

especially with the group we have in this administration

[corporatewhore]

2. so if i dont vote for kerry texas just might go to bush?

sorry kerry dont have a snowballs chance in texas

[Woodstock]

5. Please see my clarification above

I was referring to "safe" Democratic states, perhaps I was not clear enough originally.

[wuushew]

3. Sure Illinois, Massachusetts, D.C. etcetera

if those states go red by fraud or otherwise then you might as well help Nader in his goal of 5%. Third party voting is only dangerous in swing states or in close elections.

[carpetbagger]

4. You have a good point.

Of course, my state (Texas) is pretty safe.

However, I think no vote is better than voting for Nader. Mind you, last election I swapped my vote TX/OR, and therefore I cast my ballot for Nader.

[Woodstock]

8. Safe for Bush? I was talking about safe for Kerry.

I thought Texas was a Republican state.

[mstrsplinter326]

6. Indiana

Naw, Doesn't matter. An exit poll would put a 75/25 vote in bush's pocket. This is a god forsaken place.

[FDRrocks]

7. To question Nader b/c of Diebold seems to skip over

Diebold itself, really. Who cares about Nader, Democratic districts, safe states, when your vote is blowing in the electoral wind. To say that someone in a solidly blue district shouldn't cast a vote they feel compelled to, b/c thier vote might be tampered with... it seems almost defeatist. Or Orwellian. Nothing directed at you, personally. I just disagree with the sentiments.

We need to focus on Diebold.

[Woodstock]

10. I'm zeroed in on Diebold

On edit, please see the clarification above for the case I was referring to.

Diebold is something we need to address - to the extent that we can.

But on a practical matter, we may need every vote we can get.

[bluestateguy]

9. A few points

Since he does not belong to a party Nader cannot get federal funding if he clears 5%, so a lot of the rationale behind strategically voting for Nader is now gone.

There are safe states, like Texas and Massachusetts, and semi-safe states like Washington and Michigan. I would suggest that people who care about this issue not vote for Nader if they live in a state where Al Gore either won or lost by 5 or less percentage points, with the exception of Tennessee, which I think will be out of Kerry's reach.

[Gman]

11. This is just a scam being run by troll Greens

and they use DU to publicize it. Fact is they are the enemy of all of us. They want to defeat the Democratic candidate and are shoving it in our faces that they're going to vote against Kerry.

[Woodstock]

13. I don't know...

I'm sure that's the case for some, but for others, they just really are disillusioned by the party to the extent that, while they want the Democrat to win, they are not happy with some of the things he may stand for to the point where they are willing to play this game with the election. I'm just saying instead of a game of poker, they may be unwittingly playing Russian Roulette.

[tedoll78]

12. I'll be doing something different..

I live in the bowels of Texas, and this fall, the Libertarian will be getting my vote. Why? To hurt the GOP. I'm encouraging all Dems living in blood-red states (Texas/Utah/Mississippi/Wyoming/etc) to vote Libertarian so that they can get 5% in November. This will allow their party matching funds, debate access, etc for 2008. It's an investment for the future.

[BillZBubb]

14. A vote ANYWHERE for Nader is a vote for Bush

No state will be safe for Kerry in this election. To even hypothesize that is a mistake.

[Woodstock]

15. Thank you

I should have just said that in the first place. :)

[mountainvue]

16. Our strategy is don't vote for Nader.

Vote for our nominee.