Does thinking it's okay to vote for Nader mean I'm a Bush enabler?

[Colin Ex]

I am of the opinion that if one is not satisfied with John Kerry for a legitimate reason (for example, if you are my grandparents who have voted for moderate Republicans for 60 years and would not be caught dead voting for John Kerry), then it's okay to cast a vote for a third party candidate, such as the Libertarian candidate or Nader..

Does this make me a Bush enabler or no?

-C

Edited for clarity.

[mike_c]

1. no, it makes you a free American with a franchise to exercise...

...as you see fit. Do it with pride, brother.

[shraby]

2. A vote for Nader is a vote

for Bush! If you don't want Bush in office, the only way to vote him out is to vote for Kerry. Kerry HAS to have the majority of electoral college votes in order to win.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

No.

It does make you naive though, if you think Nader has any chance of victory.

[Colin Ex]

6. I don't. I'm speaking strictly in terms of protest votes, mostly.

Or people who just really fucking hate the candidates from both main parties (such as moderate Republicans and non-PNAC conservatives).

-C

[leftofthedial]

3. well, yes

it is okay to vote however you wish

it is okay to think whatever you wish

if you vote for Nader, you are a bushgang enabler

[Turbineguy]

4. Unfortunately, yes.

It's a real shame too.

[Colin Ex]

7. How so? nt

[JayS]

5. Ah! The "N" word again! :)

:)

[shraby]

11. Protest votes this year

will get another 4 years of Bush. If that's what you want, vote protest.

[JayS]

20. What if both Bush and Kerry induce vomiting? n/t

n/t

[HawkerHurricane]

8. In the case of your grandparents...

who, if they didn't vote for Nader would vote for Bush, No. Nor are you an enabler if you encourage them to do so (vice voting for Bush). In this specific case, you are reducing Bush's count by two, which is a good thing, even if you can't increase Kerry's count.

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. Your legitimate reason makes no sense.

Why would moderate republicans vote for Nader? He wouldn't appear to be their man!

Do these "moderate" republicans subscribe to the oft quoted "Fiscal conservative, Socially moderate" that is essentially self contradictory?

[Colin Ex]

How about another third party candidate?

I did note that in the post. What if instead of John Kerry, they'd prefer to vote for the Libertarian candidate?

[The_Casual_Observer]

24. I don't know who they could vote for then

Bush has hijacked the GOP which leaves all these "Fiscal (Fecal?) conservative..." out in the cold.

[Colin Ex]

30. They could vote for the Libertarian candidate,

they could vote for the Natural Law candidate, they could vote for the Reform party candidate if there is one, they could vote for a litany of different parties.

-C

[The_Casual_Observer]

38. Libertarian candidate

These guys are nuttier than bush himself, same goes for the others.
This brings up the point that the moderate right should invent their own party & run a candidate like Specter.

[napi21]

10. No, not a Bush supporter, but

you can't possibly believe Nader can win! If you don't believe the person you are voting for can win, why are you voting for him? I know, principals....

Well, maybe principals got us what we have today. Do you like it?

If you don't, I suspect you want someone else in power.

Wouldn't it then make sense to vote for someone who would defeat the encumbent?

Just think about that.

[JayS]

16. "principals got us what we have today"

I think it is the lack of principles and voter apathy that got us what we have today. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[JI7]

12. why do your grandparents want to vote for Nader

if they are the type who vote moderate republican.

[Colin Ex]

17. Pardon me for not being clear enough -- in their case

they'd probably vote for another third party candidate, such as the Libertarian party.

Nader is in the subject line because his name gets thrown around the most.

-C

[pinto]

25. Colin Ex, your grandparents' can make up their own minds, no?

As can you. Nothing personal, just a comment.

[Colin Ex]

37. I don't know why people are harping on the example so much.

Seems to be a lot of shit being pulled out of thin air.

-C

[JI7]

28. if they are the type to typically vote republican, but go with libertarian

or some other party that leans right of center then it's a good thing for democrats.

[Philostopher]

13. Y'know what?

If it's somebody who wouldn't vote for Kerry no matter what, just the fact that s/he isn't voting for Bush* is good enough for me. Because the next best thing to a vote for Kerry is taking a vote away from Bush*. I'm all about discouraging people from voting for the Dim Son, even if it means they won't vote for Kerry.

[jpgray]

14. No, you're a Nader enabler. :-)

This is a democracy--as far as I can see, a vote for Nader is just a vote for Nader. One can argue the implications or true impacts of the vote until the cows come home, but a vote for Nader is not a direct vote for Bush by definition. Kerry should be prepared to deal with Nader as he is to deal with Bush--they are both part of the campaign landscape and they have to be factored in to the overall strategy of his candidacy.

[JI7]

21. he did meet with him

it shows he acknowledges the nader factor. and nader endorsed potential vp picks which voted for iwr.

[LoZoccolo]

15. Yes.

For one, why would you think Ralph Nader is better than John Kerry?

For another, you know that either Kerry or Bush* will win.

[mwar]

18. Would your grandparents vote for Nader?

How does Nader represent some type of moderate choice? I certainly don't believe he's "just another" third party candidate. He's a spoiler in this election, just like the last one. Don't be fooled.

[MirrorAshes]

19. It just depends on how seriously you take the situation.

I take it VERY seriously. I will vote for John Kerry, and I will do it because I want to cast the most relevant, damaging vote against the Bush administration I can.

Voting outside the main battle, Bush vs Kerry, just tells me that someone doesnt take it all very seriously, or else they would be doing everything they possibly could to see GWB lose.

[demconfive]

22. So your not satisfied with Kerry?

Are you satisfied with Bush? Nader is pretty well irrelevant to the question of president.You might as well vote for your mom and at least make one person happy. Surely your mom is better than Nader,having been elected at least as many times.

[Colin Ex]

27. My opinion on Kerry is definitely not the issue here.

The thread is about my opinion on people who aren't interested in voting for Kerry but definitely aren't interested in voting for Bush, and whether that makes me a Bush-enabler.

I know exactly how I feel about John Kerry and am deliberately witholding my opinions for purposes of this thread.

-C

[demconfive]

36. Yout keep saying: "does that make [i]me[/i] a Bush-enabler"

So you can see why I might think your're voting Nader. If you were talking about other people wouldn't you say:"does that make them a Bush-enabler"? Enabling requires action (or inaction);like voting. Your opinion doesn't enable anyone.So No, your thoughts on other peoples voting doesn't make you an enabler, only your vote.

[Colin Ex]

39. This is the kind of answer I was looking for:

"So No, your thoughts on other peoples voting doesn't make you an enabler, only your vote."

Something along those lines, either concurring or not.

-C

[demconfive]

51. One would hope, however.....

That you would try and convince the wayward voter to put his vote where it would be more effective, like a vote for Kerry.Whether you do or not is not enabling them.If you reassured them about their vote in a way that was contrary to your own beliefs, than that would be enabling.While some may think that you have an obligation to explain the ramifications of their vote, they are grown ups and are responsible for their own dumb actions.

[FleshCartoon]

23. Why not just abstain instead...

...if you cannot in good conscience cast your vote for either of the two candidates who have a chance to win?

[mwar]

26. Oh hello!

Does this sound familiar?

[FleshCartoon]

31. LOL!

Yeah, it does, now that you mention it. But it's a little more civil up 'til now, at least.

:hi:

[mwar]

33. I feel like a refugee

From a foreign war.

[FleshCartoon]

34. Well, as Tom Petty say...

...you don't have to live like a refugee.

[mwar]

35. And as the Who said... and shrub tried to say

We don't get fooled again!

[Old and In the Way]

29. Sure!

It's a free country....for now.

Your grandparents must be running out of moderate Republicans to vote for, eh? A 60 year voting pattern, while admirable, is a hardly a legitimate reason to not vote for Kerry.

But you really shouldn't kid yourself.....voting Nader helps Bush more than it helps Kerry. But if it makes you feel better, vote Nader. Because another 4 years of Bush would be no different than Kerry....right?

[Colin Ex]

32. A) Yeah, my grandparents are none too pleased with the Republican party

these days.

2) My vote is not the issue here, as I made my mind up awhile ago. The issue here is my sympathy for other people who aren't interested in voting for Kerry.

[Old and In the Way]

44. Yes, perhaps a sympathy card is in order.

Sucks when you can't have a candidate that conforms 100% to your ideal. But then, only 2 people out of 250MM have a shot at getting elected so there's a good chance that most people will have to compromise on their ideal choice.

[Andromeda]

40. Yes.

n/t

[MrSlayer]

41. Yep. Don't sell your soul or the rest of us down the river.

Think of the kids damnit!

[John_H]

42. no. it means you think it's OK to enable Chimp. It's a fine line.

There's just no way to spin it. if you vote Nader you enable chimp by depriving a vote from the only guy that can win it.

Let's say we live in a country, population 100. DeLay, Nader and Chomsky are running. Delay gets 49 votes. Nader gets 48. Chomsky gets 3. Did Chomsky enable Delay? Of course not say the Chomskyites, those three pure-of-ideology-and-idealism voters just exercised their right to vote for whichever candidate reflects their beliefs! Yup. They also just got Tom Delay as their president.

[DieboldMustDie]

43. It's better they vote for Nader than Bush...

since essentially it's no vote at all, but better still if they vote for Kerry. Why people who "have voted for moderate Republicans for 60 years" would support a right wing extremist like Bush completely escapes me. Forty years ago when Barry Goldwater was resoundingly defeated for the presidency it was said that he was far too conservative. If Goldwater were around today, he would be considered a moderate.

[struggle4progress]

45. Is there any reason to devote lots of intellectual energy to this?

Politics is about power. That means: winning elections. The point of voting isn't primarily to make you feel good or to preserve your moral superiority but to get somebody into office. If your side wins the election, you can push for policy changes so good things can happen: and, in fact, some good things will happen, and some things will still suck.

Working for local candidates you like will make much more of a long-term difference than casting a silly protest vote.

[Oddman]

46. I like it!

Enable the chimp - vote Nader!

Go for it!!! Anyone who would even consider voting for Nader is probably not leading a full and productive life anyway so why not bury what little freedoms we have left with a vote for Nader!!!!

[Classical_Liberal]

47. In a swing state yes. In a non swing state no

.

[LibertyorDeath]

48. "then it's okay to cast a vote for a third party candidate,"

NO NOT IN THIS ELECTION!

The far Right has the White House, Congress, Senate and SCOTUS

The bush regime are just getting started testing how far & how fast they can push in turning America into a dictatorship.

America needs your vote to count

The far right is playing for keeps they will use all means necessary to keep power.

[louis c]

49. No to Nader

This is not a parliamentary system. If after the election, like minded candidates could form coalitions,than a vote for Nader would have a positive effect by moving Kerry closer to Nader's positions after the election. However, our system punishes like minded candidates by weakening them in a winner take all format, that is even more punishing when you consider the electoral college. In short, to even consider Nader for President after the 2000 election is the same as working to re-select Bush.

[progdonkey]

50. vote right wing third party

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush; a vote for the Libertarians or Constitution Party is a vote for Kerry. Third parties harm their closest party (which is exactly why Nader ran and is running; fucking nutjob). It's that simple.

[yorgatron]

52. this is DEMOCRATICunderground

not NADERunderground.why are you here?

[progdonkey]

54. ???

:wtf:

Are you stupid or something? Honestly. Here's the post I wrote to which you replied:

"A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush; a vote for the Libertarians or Constitution Party is a vote for Kerry. Third parties harm their closest party (which is exactly why Nader ran and is running; fucking nutjob). It's that simple."

Where exactly am I supporting Nader? I call him a "fucking nutjob" for Christ's sake!

The original poster asked whether voting for Nader if he's not pleased with Kerry makes him a Bush enabler. I replied that third party candidates harm their closest parties (the reason Nader stated he never ran in the 70s; and which proves he wanted Gore to lose), effectively making a vote for a left-wing third party a vote for Bush, and one for a right-wing third party a vote for Kerry.

Really, you assert I'm a Nader supporter, yet you didn't notice I called him a "fucking nutjob."

:dunce:

[Bridget Burke]

53. Yes. You are a Bush enabler.

Don't use your grandparents as an excuse.

[Nlighten1]

55. No it doesn't.

But I would argue that might be a rather unwise move.

[GreenPartyVoter]

56. In a sense it does, but

personally I can't stand being called a Bush enabler. If I really wanted Bush in office I would vote for Bush instead of taking this ridiculous side-trip down Nader lane

This fall I plan on voting against Bush via Kerry. It's not the optimal plan, but's this is an emergency. And, barring cheating by the BFEE again, once Kerry is president I'll be sending him a lot of letters about what I'd like to see him do while in office. And yeah, election reform is a tthe top of my list.

[NNN0LHI]

57. I could care less if someone wants to vote for Nader

But if that person wants to come here to DU and use that vote for Nader as a shield to tear down the Dem nominee then we will have a problem. We don't allow Rethugs to come here and blather on about how great the Chimp is, and criticize the Dem nominee. So why in the hell would we allow that same person to come here and do the same shit while hiding behind a supposed Nader vote? Does that answer your question?

Don

[Killarney]

58. It depends

If the person is a liberal and votes Nader instead of Kerry, most definitely they are a Bush enabler.

If it's in the case of your grandparents that they are conservative and would normally be voting for the Republican candidate, but votes Nader instead... I don't know what to call that. Just out of curiousity, why would they be voting for someone that's supposedly more liberal than Kerry? I just don't understand why a Republican would vote for Nader. I'm curious to hear their reasoning. Thanks. :)

[mkultra]

59. its about as useful

as trying to write in Dennis Kucinich.