A suggestion to progressives thinking of voting for NADER...

[Delano]

Before you cast a vote for a man who has never held office, never balanced a budget, never even raised a family... If you just can't bear to vote for Kerry, why not think about WRITING IN Dennis Kucinich? He is better than Nader in every way, and he's a DEMOCRAT. If there were a lot of Kucinich write-ins, it would at least send a clear message to Kerry and the dems that we want the party to listen to us. (Not that I will do so - I intend fully to vote for Kerry)

[FlemingsGhost]

1. Nader is "Anybody but Bush."

A fact many here conveniently ignore.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mac56]

6. Great. Another message-sender.

The only message you'll be sending is "Welcome, George, For Four More Years".

Hope you can live with that. Maybe you're secretly wondering how bad it could really be.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

7. Pfft

Let's start trashing Kucinich now for the crap that his STAFFERS did back... when? Are we talking 70's here?

LMAO!

[Forkboy]

10. You voted for Bush you said

I'll pass on your advice.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NoPasaran]

18. If you want to "send a message" to the party get active in it

And stay active. Sit through some boring meetings and get some credibility. Give a few bucks. Do some organizing.

That's how you send a message. Voting for an egomaniac dedicated to destroying the party is a poor strategy.

[mac56]

22. Great answer, NoPasaran.

Unfortunately, a lot of people here don't want to do the heavy lifting and earn their cred. As Sam Rayburn said, any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NoPasaran]

47. Mmmmmm-right

A reformed conservative who's now a Democrat who's voting for Nader because Kerry just doesn't measure up to your standard.

I wonder if you'll still be here tomorrow.

[ashling]

30. We have got to get Bush OUT

or we are ALL doomed!

progressivism has to be tempered with pragmatism in order to be pactical

practical progressives realize that there WILL only be one winner here: and that WILL be either George Bush or John Kerry.

[Gruenemann]

5. no, nader is

nobody but bush. no matter how you cut it, a vote for nader is a vote for bush. a fact many seem to forget.

[amber dog democrat]

8. I still can't go there.

Nader has no credibility. Thanks for the reminder however.
From now on it will be Anybody But Bush or Nader.

I have this issue with meglomania and narcisism - they can strike anywhere.

[cjbuchanan]

12. ABB also means someone who can win

I volunteered for Nader in 2000 and have not attacked him on this board, but he is not going to be elected in 2004. There is no way it is going to happen. Like it or not, that's the truth.

Either Bush or Kerry is going to win in November.

If you live in a safe state, such as Texas, it really does not matter for whom you vote. However, if live in a "battlefield state" and you do not vote for either Bush or Kerry, well your vote is not going to matter either, because the person that receives your vote is not going to win the state.

I am not telling you to vote for Kerry or not vote for Nader, I'm just trying to be realistic.

[FlemingsGhost]

21. I disagree.

If voters embrace the concept of "Anybody but ..." that's just what you get: anybody.

John Kerry is likely to be elected to the most powerful office in the world, simply by not being George W. Bush. In other words, by being "anybody." This is how we elect leaders now? To be fair, thank gods he is a decent man. For that, he gets my vote. Still, it doesn't reflect well on the state of our much heralded, shining-light-of-the-world "democracy."

[cjbuchanan]

27. I don't see what you are disagreeing with

One can argue that the reason Clinton was elected was that he was not Bush Sr., Reagan because he was not Carter, Carter because he was not Nixon/Ford, etc.

The reality is that most elections involving an incumbent are more about that incumbent then about the challenger. This has been the state of democracy for a long, long time. Also, as I stated in my above post, the way we have set up our presidential elections, voters in just a dozen or so states will decided who gets to be the most powerful person in the world.

So I am not sure what you are disagreeing with. I do apologize.

[ashling]

36. NEGATIVE

Its not just the final vote count. We need the energy of all of these folks to get rid of Bush, wherever they are. Assuming that your vote will not count because you are not in a battleground state is a defeatist attitude that we can not afford.

Some of these "safe" states - even TEXAS - could turn around in the near future given the proper push. Dividing our strength will only hurt that effort. Don't discount Texas Dems. A vote for Kerry in Texas - and other "safe" states - will help to encourage and revitalize Dems rhere to take back their own states.
:dem:

[cjbuchanan]

53. I don't think I'm being negative, I think I'm being realistic

Texas is going to go for Bush this year, so really, it does not matter for whom you vote for president. That stated, I think we have a great chance of keeping the congressional delegation in Dems hands.

So I do want people to vote, but total vote count only matters when it comes to moral victories, and moral victories do not count for much (look at 2000 for example).

The honest truth is a vote for Kerry in Texas will not keep Bush from getting elected. Now a $50 donation from Texas will help stop Bush.

If you see this as cynical, that's okay, but I think I'm just spelling it out as I see it.

So let's all make sure to vote, because our vote might not mean much at the top, but all those down ballot will need your support. And if we really want to change things, we have to start at the bottom and work our way up.

[ashling]

54. "Defeatist" then

I think you are wrong when you say:
Texas is going to go for Bush this year, so really, it does not matter for whom you vote for president.
I think it does matter who you vot for. First of all, I don't concede anything to Bush just as a matter of principle, if nothing else.

I also disagree with you when you say:
moral victories do not count for much

They count for a lot.

One thing I know is that we always have to be about building the party. The job of building is continual, even when you loose a particular race or a particular state. Right now the Dems are building in Texas, and they need every vote. Moral victories are also morale vicrories. We need every one we can get.

[cjbuchanan]

55. Then we disagree

I have not seen much come from moral victories, but I can see your point.

As for my quote about it not mattering for whom you vote, I am talking about it in relation to actually electing the president. Yes it matters who gets your vote because you should vote for the person you think should be president, but don't think that vote is actually going to decide the next president.

That is the truth.

You are right, we need to build, build and build some more, and I, just as I am sure you are, am doing everything I can to make Texas a Dem state. But I do not see how calling a spade a spade is stopping that from happening.

By the way, I also disagree with your "defeatist" definition. Being a realist might look like being a "defeatist" to you, but it really is not. I am sure that within 8 years, Texas will have a Dem Gov., house and senate. Also, I think that by 2012, Texas will be a battleground state.

[ashling]

57. Actually, I think we agree on a lot

I think to some extent we are talking past each other. That is to say, the problem is that I am not doing a very good job of talking to our common points. Sorry about that.

Rather than disagreeing, I think we are coming at the same thing from different directions or, at least, different perspectives. Nothing wrong with that.

We are both interested in building the state party. That is what is important. We can agree to disagree on the other for right now.

I just want everybody to know that we WILL take back Texas!

[cjbuchanan]

58. Then we do agree!!!!!

You are right, we are going to take back Texas.

You, me and thousands like use are going to make it happen.

If only we could communicate a little better with one another ;)

Sorry if I came off in a bad way.

Now let's shake each other's hand and get back to organizing.

:party:

By the way, were you able to make it to the state convention this past weekend? It was wonderful. Hope you were there and hope you had a fantastic time.

[ashling]

60. unfortunately I was not able to make the state convention

Sounds like I missed some really good speeches, working groups, etc.

[hippiegranny]

13. ok then, for me at's awcbb

Anyone
Who
Can
Beat
Bush

that leaves out Nader.

[hippiegranny]

15. for me, it's AWCBB

Anyone
Who
Can
Beat
Bush

That leaves out Nader.

[cjbuchanan]

19. Sounds so nice, you had to post it twice?

;)

[hippiegranny]

34. yep, i hear if you repeat something often enough

it becomes fact! actually i had the internet posting equivalent of a brain fart. :)

[kiahzero]

51. That's a blatant misuse of the term

The idea of "Anybody But Bush" was that any of the 10 Democratic contenders for the nomination, even Diamond Joe Lieberman, was vastly better than Bush. Therefore, no matter who won the nomination, an "ABBer" would vote for that person.

Claiming that Nader is someone an "ABBer" would support indicates that either:
A) You don't know what you're talking about.
B) You're lying.

Pick one.

[cjbuchanan]

2. How many states allow for undeclared "write-ins"?

In Texas, unless a candidate files to be a write-in prior to the election (I think it might be 30 days), any votes casts will not be counted.

This might not be the case everywhere.

[sangh0]

3. Don't confuse the Naderites with facts

It's not like they care about the facts.

[Delano]

9. I hope you're not calling ME a "Naderite"

I'm a liberal, and I think the democratic party is way too comprimised by corporate money, and way too far to the right, but I will NOT waste MY vote on that egomaniac loser.

[sangh0]

11. Not at all

the messgae was for those Naderites who might worry about being able to write-in DK's name.

[alejandrofromcuba]

16. greens

I have a daughter who is a Green. I have tried to talk her into voting for Kerry, but she is not going to.

She will not support the democratic party, she feels that they are not fighting for the issues that are important to her.

It is hubris for the Democratic party to expect to keep people when you do not fight for their issues. This is the downside of moving the party closer to the right and trying to co-opt repub issues. The theory is that you will keep those on the far left--after all where are they going to go? They are yours and are not going to vote for Bush after all. Many will vote democratic in the end, just because they hate Bush more. But trust me, they are not happy with a party that does not press for their issues. We must make environmental issues more important to us--then we will bring back these wonderful young people who care so passionately about their world!

[tandot]

23. does she feel that Bush is fighting for the issues that are important to

her? Did she like the last 3 1/2 years we had under Bush?

I agree that we must do more for the environment. And I think that Kerry shouldn't have voted for the Iraq war. But there are only two viable choices this November: Bush or Kerry.

If you do not live in one of those swing States, voting for Nader might not make a big difference. But if you do, your vote is more likely to harm Kerry than Bush.

This world can't take four more years of Bush. This would be an expensive price to pay for a "political statement."

[ecoalex]

14. Thrown away vote

It is nice to make a political statement, but last election ( 2000 ) Gore lost because of 3rd party candidates, Nader in particular. Four independent studies confirmed Nader votes gave bush a close enough margin to carry Florida. yes thousands of black voters were disenfranchaised, helping jeb -boy , and Harris to deliver Florida, but Nader gave some cover for the shrub. Nader, Kucinich , will not be certified on all 50 ballots, so their candidacies are not serious, they are for a "protest vote" to express one's dissatifaction with the 2 major parties. With the conservative jauggernaut operating at full throttle, brain washing many voters, we need to move the country to the center, before attempting to move towards a serious progresive candidate. This country needs to hear the truth, and let it filter in, which will take years. To start this process, Kerry is the candidate, electable, unlike 3rd party candidates. You can make a statement to move this country more to the center, by voting for Kerry. To let bush have another 4 years, will serve noone,but the nazi right. Don't let it happen again, vote Kerry, then we can hopefully more more to progressive policies/Presidents.

[porphyrian]

26. Lighten Up Already

People, please stop complaining about how Nader lost the 2000 election for the Democrats. The Democrats lost the 2000 election for the Democrats, by trying to pander to right-wing "centrists", who apparently don't make much of a positive difference for us in elections. Had the Democrats not alienated their base with this republican-lite strategy, Nader wouldn't have had enough support for most people to even realize he ran. In 2000, the vote was so close that any factor, allowing blacks to vote, preventing the butterfly ballot in W. Palm, fair handling of absentee ballots, allowing the recount to finish, etc., would have changed the outcome. You aren't changing any minds trying to threaten people into not voting Nader. Why don't you, instead, make the party of the left actually cater to the left? That way, nuttos like Nader won't be able to take up those votes you lost.

[Sub Atomic]

17. I've got a better suggestion:

[messiah]

20. Kucinich?

the guy with no power "within" the democratic party. The guy who gets laughed at by his own party members ha........ I rather start from scratch and create a "true" viable "alternative".

[sangh0]

24. Nader?

The guy with no power anywhere? The guy who laughs at the Green Party, which nominated him even though NADER IS NOT A GREEN!! HA!

[messiah]

29. I dont really

give a fuck at least he standing up for what he believes.

[redqueen]

32. Like Kucinich does, you mean?

Nader's an idiot.

[sangh0]

38. And at least DK runs with the party he belongs to

and that party doesn't nominate candidates who aren't members in order to have a name that people recognize.

[messiah]

45. I'm talking about

presidential candidates who actually run and dont $$sale-out their issues. Nader is an idiot?, naw he's just real. I live in a world where change is not made by voting for the dem or rep. Both parties rejoice in my friends and family members being in jail and to that I say fuck the two party system. We just have different opinions and let's leave it at that.

[rman]

59. standing up for what you believe won't help getting rid of Bush

How about standing up against what you most decidedly do not believe in?
After that we can try and create paradise on earth.

[Trekologer]

25. Why would you vote for Nader?

Nader is a fraud.

He created the network of PIRGs that do nothing but steal money from college students all over the country and squander funds through extremely high overhead costs and funnel the rest through various front groups to groups like Greenpeace. All of this is generally unknown by the college students who "donate" to the PIRGs through the fees on their term bills.

Even if you were to agree with the groups that PIRG funnels money to, you are better off giving directly to them. The PIRGs are a waste and so is Nader.

[cjbuchanan]

28. Welcome to DU!

Great to have you here.
:party:

[newyawker99]

49. Hi Trekologer!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[rbnyc]

31. I love Kucinich, but...

...in the GE, please, vote for Kerry! I am sending my messgae to the party in many ways, but one of them has been by continuing to support Kucinich through to the convention. But after that, Bush must go, end of story!

[redqueen]

33. Right. Kucinich is intelligent enough

to understand why he should support Kerry despite their disagreements.

How sad that Nader and his followers don't get it.

[Delano]

35. The post is strictly aimed at those who "can't bring themselves"...

...to vote for Kerry. All I'm saying is that a write-in for Kucinich is a better protest vote than a vote for Nader. Either way the net effect of Kerry's vote totals would be the same, but at least it's not fueling the mad delusions of grandeur being enjoyed my Mr. Nader.

I would still implore anyone on the fence to go ahead and do the patriotic thing and GET RID OF BUSH. If you believe in the greens so much, get them on all the county commissions, state legislatures, then congress, then the senate. When the greens are a credible third party, rather than a tiny minority, there may be a chance for a Green Presidency.

If Kucinich ever brings up a young protegé who LOOKS like JFK Jr, instead of like some sort of freaky wood sprite (sorry, Dennis), Maybe he would have a chance. Dennis has the right ideas, platform and a wonderful way of connecting with people, but unfortunately, appearances count for A LOT these days...

[Cheswick2.0]

37. If I can't bring myself to vote for Kerry, I will be writing in Gore

Chances are I will find a way to vote for Kerry. It is going to depend on who his running mate is.

[redqueen]

39. As long as you know it may not even be counted

and you're comfortable having a hand in the possibility of bush getting close enough to steal it again... then no problem... I guess.

[ashling]

46. If you vote for anybody but Kerry

be it Nader, Kucinich, or the Tooth Fairy, it will not count for anything except support for Bush.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

40. Everyone has already had a chance to vote for Kucinich.

Everyone - including Greens registered as Dems (or in non-declare states) - had a chance to vote for Kucinich in the primaries. I did. I sent my message. And now I am voting for Kerry, the apparent nominee, in the general. The only message you send to the party when you don't vote for the Democrat in the general election is that you are a lost cause, and that they shouldn't even bother trying to get/keep your vote. The more people exit the party from the left, the farther to the right the party is going to go to get swing votes. A wasted vote is a wasted vote whether it goes to Nader, a write-in, or whether you stay home.

ON EDIT:
I do understand that you are addressing this to people who say they will absolutely, positively not be voting for Kerry no matter what, but I still think it's better to keep trying to persuade those people of the wisdom of voting for Kerry rather than give them even the barest justification for not doing so.

[redqueen]

41. Great post!

I agree -- we had our chance to 'send a message' - the PRIMARIES.

The stakes are too high in the GE for such nonsense.

:thumbsup:

[rbnyc]

48. I agree.

And I agree with your edit.

[Deja Q]

50. Well, your post literally screams volumes...

We need * out of power. Write-ins for Kucinich will only make him the scapegoat and his supporters no worse.

You speak volumes. 2 of them, in fact. And they're incoherent.

The first volume is telling other people to write-in for Kucinich, saying what a great statement it'd make to the Dem party, which is when you outright say ("I won't put my ballot where my big mouth is.") :eyes: Gee, wasn't that the function of the GREEN PARTY?!

Second, you know full well that some DUers are petty enough to create a slim set of scapegoats to fully blame while ignoring the whole situation at hand. Election 2000 had Nader as the sole scapegoat when Jeb and Katherine Harris and enough of the "Supreme" Court had a MUCH MUCH MUCH greater role in *'s ascention into power. Nader was an insect and people turned him into the only reason why * won. Which speaks volumes about those people too, sigh...

[Delano]

52. I AM NOT telling people to write-in Kucinich.

I'm telling people planning to waste their vote to do so on Kucinich rather than egomaniac Nader. It's as much as sending a message to Nader to STFU as is is to the DNC.

As I've said numerous times, I prefer that EVERYONE vote for Kerry. I hope every democrat has the sense to do so, but I know there will be a few holdouts who insist on voting for the "pure" candidate. As far as I'm concerned, a Kucinich write-in would be a better way of doing that than just stroking Nader's ego.

"Nader was an insect and people turned him into the only reason why * won. Which speaks volumes about those people too, sigh..."


Sure, Katherine Harris & Co were a huge factor in 2000, but Nader was too. If all the Nader votes had gone to Gore it would have put him over the top. Sure Nader wasn't as villainous as the Florida gangsters, but he certainly deserved some share of the blame.

And a write-in for Kucinich would NOT make him a scapegoat. He is NOT trying to run against Kerry as the GOP-financed Nader is.

[wadestock]

56. A reasonable option for Nader supporters

The last time around...I can see people perhaps not seeing the ramifications of going one way or the other and they thought perhaps they'd send the proverbial "message vote".

But now we have a war going on. I don't know how anyone could rationalize a "message vote" today with the stakes as high as they are.