How to handle the Nader problem

[RummyTheDummy]

Listen to them. Kerry should appeal to them. The shouldn't be threatened, mocked or chastised. They should be included in the debate and respected.

IMHO, that's the only real way to get them to think twice before they pull that lever, touch that screen or punch that ballot for Ralph. If you piss them off, they'll either sit this one out alltogether or vote for Ralph.

And in an election this close, I do think 2 or 3 percent matters in the battle ground states.

[niceypoo]

1. Nader was on CSPAN tonight

and he really ripped into Bush and the damage he did to the country the last 3 years. I have a feeling that Nader will pull out towards the end and endorse Kerry.

[John_H]

2. Nader has said

that he's declared war on the Democratic Party and admitted that he hoped to use the Bush presidency to make people come around to his point of view. Those aren't the words of a guy who will ever endorse Kerry.

Nader should be treated like an opponent--and the vulnerable opponent he is. Before people cast a "protest" vote for Nader, they should be aware of his union busting, profiteering from the companies he vilifies, his financial secrecy, and his personal nastiness.

[Pale Blue Dot]

3. How to handle the Nader problem?

Ignore it. He's irrelevant.

[Robin Hood]

4. We ignored him in 2000.

I say we treat him just like an opponent. Go after him just as we would after Bush.

[tedoll78]

5. I have trouble estimating..

what % of Nader voters would even merely consider voting for Kerry, which is a different % of those who consider themselves Democrats. From what I've read and heard, many of them are my age (late teens/20's), and a good deal of them are educated. They know the implications of this election and what three more Scalia-type justices on the Supreme Court would mean.

It's frustrating. The past three years have brought strenuous circumstance and disappointment on certain votes of Kerry's, and for those sins, he will forever be punished, totally negating all other fighting that he's done for progressive causes. We've gone and nominated probably one of the most liberal senators we could find, and he's still not good enough. I would try to convince, but it's tough.

And it's not like a Nader vote will mean anything significant for the larger political picture. He's not going to reach anywhere near 5%. Hell, he'll end-up lumped-in with Harry Browne and the rest of the also-ran-agains. And so the Democrats won't move left.. they'll just assume that Green/Nader folks can't be reasoned-with and move right to pick-up more votes. Arguably, we've seen this after 2000. Like I said, it's tough to reason.

I see some pleading and discussion going on between Democrats and Naderites on a person-by-person level, but I also see plenty of shouting matches and tit-for-tats. I wish party officials would meet, even if it's to show that Democrats realize that Greens have valid concerns that will be considered in policy formation. And I participate in the flaming, but I still wish for some deeper dialogue.

In my fantasy world, we'd abolish the winner-takes-all system and move to one of proportionate representation. Coalition government, similar to that found in some European countries. I'm betting that more voters would show-up at the polls, and I'm betting that the left would win a TON more than the right ever does. I'm also betting that if the Democrats need the Greens for a center-left majority (or vice-versa), the Greens would wield a ton more power (again, or vice-versa). Still, we have this stupid system structure, and now we're all feeling its implications. We see the implications on TV. We read the poll results, feel discomfort, and feel the fear over its implications. We're affected every day by the policies arising from this silly system. Our structure of representative government sucks (I think), but I'm not at all willing to give-up.. the other options are even far more dismal.

If only a someone on the left could get into office and move the political middle in the leftward direction.. I suspect that it is indeed possible, but that it would require hard work and unity. Nader + Gore got easily over 50% of the vote last time, and the Kerry + Nader portion of the vote seems to be headed in that direction again. Imagine if we were to team-up and consistently win - we'd be able to move leftward policywise, which would lose some support in the middle, but we'd bring enough of the population with us enough such that we'd still win.

We can do it, but only by being a unified left. It's frustrating, both for Nader-ers/Greens with legit concerns, for liberals who continue to pin hope with the Democrats, etc. I usually just bash bash bash Ralph, but I'm trying something different with this post, and I hope that its content doesn't offend. Cheers.

[Gman]

6. The way to handle Nader

is to work the legislatures where we have any influence to make it as highly dificult if not absolutely impossible for Nader to get on the ballot in as many states as possible.

Screw Nader. Screw Nader in the legislatures where we can. Make it impossible to get on the ballot in at least half if not more of the states.

Let him on the ballot in the blue states out west where the GOP controls the legislatures and devote the effor to keeping Nader off the ballot in MO, WI, OH, WV, FL, IL, and as many swings states as possible, if not all the swing states where we can.

Screw Nader. This is hardball.