Ralph Nader wants to know...

[MGKrebs]

if YOU think he should run for president.

I know by posting this link, some will vote yes, but I expect more will vote no, as will I. No offense Ralph.

http://www.naderexplore04.org/survey/survey_start.php

[jenk]

1. FLOOD THIS WITH NO VOITES!

[glarius]

2. Can't believe Nader is willing to get into the race again & guarantee Bush

a win in a close election....Where's his head at?.....I'm not American but I hope all Americans vote NO to Nader....

[ToneE]

3. VOTE YES

I hope Nader DOES get in. Maybe that way whichever Demo runs will have to actually address a few basic issues like NAFTA, WTO, the disappearing middle class etc. etc.
No way, we need another Demo. "moving to the center"(read becoming another GW) as soon as the nomination is his!

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[ToneE]

5. Address issues or else

That's right. If a Demo. doesn't address the issues I think are important, then why should I support some mealy-mouthed Bush clone? Those Demos who believe in traditionally Democratic issues should get down on their knees and thank Ralph Nader for getting into the race. The DLC types are destroying the party? Do YOU want another so-called Demo administration with a Treasury secretary from Goldman-Sachs(Robert Rubin,) who does everything in his power to destroy the right of labor, environmental controls, etc. like Clinton did by supporting NAFTA, GATT, the WTO et al??
NO THANKS!
Give'em Hell, Ralph!!

[wuushew]

9. Bush WILL start more wars

war trumps fair trade, I am sorry but that is the truth. Even a centrist democrat is preferable to a warmonger. Your litmus test needs prioritizing.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Iverson]

6. Boo! bugga bugga Nader wubba wubba

It's another tribute to Pavlov. Step right up, ladies and gentlemen.

:eyes:

[ulysses]

10. **wets self in fright**

;-)

[MGKrebs]

7. I have voted for 3rd party candidates

in the past- when my vote didn't really matter. But Georgia just may be in play this year, so it counts.

I say, let's take one step at a time; even if the Dem nominee is not all we want, if it looks like he or she can beat Bush, let's do it. Then we will be in a position to get the rest of the package next time.

[LeahMira]

8. Way to go!

I have voted for 3rd party candidates in the past- when my vote didn't really matter. But Georgia just may be in play this year, so it counts.

If you want to win and you think that a third party would be good for the country, this is the way to go.

I say, let's take one step at a time; even if the Dem nominee is not all we want, if it looks like he or she can beat Bush, let's do it. Then we will be in a position to get the rest of the package next time.

I really do think that both parties want nothing to challenge their control of the country, and they will work to make sure that there's never a good time for a viable third party to gain any sort of real power. A whole lot can happen between now and 11/04. It may be that so many mistakes will have been made by the current administration that Americans will wake up en masse and throw the scoundrels out on their ears. But until I see that happening, I plan to vote Democratic if my state looks like a close race, but to vote Green if my vote really won't count much one way or the other.

The Electoral College system stinks, but if that's the way the game is played, then I will play it that way.

[ulysses]

11. a question

:hi: by the way. :)

What makes you say that GA could be in play next year?

[MGKrebs]

12. Recent elections, although trending more

conservative, have been very close in statewide races. If the damn voting machines count right, it might be close. Being a Dean supporter, I can see his his message connecting here.

I've seen him twice here now, and both times he has said they will compete in Georgia, and they think they can win it. (Of course, one would expect him to say that regardless, but they could just as easily ignore us).

edit: :hi: uly!

[Deja Q]

13. The next person on DU who makes a post about irrelevency...

and I'll vote Green across the board.

Greens and Nader did not ruin it in 2000. Corruption, illegal actions on the part of Jeb/Katherine, and the partisan supreme court ruined it.

[MGKrebs]

15. There's a lot of things that ruined it.

Add to your list: Tennessee going to Bush, media lies and distortion, Gore's choice of Lieberman (perhaps), Ken Starr. But Nader is one of those things too. A difference in any of these things could have changed the result. Why not do differently, what we can control, this time?

From Mike Hersch,

"Gore won Florida by all fair, full vote counts. However, Nader's "spoiler" efforts there - culminating in his last-ditch, last minute campaign swings - handed Bush the White House by drawing enough votes to cost Gore a clear victory.

Nader pulled a net estimated 22,422 votes from Gore. That turned a Gore 21,885 vote win into the "official" 537 vote "loss." Gore lost New Hampshire (by 7,211 votes, 1.3%). Nader took triple that margin.

Gore would have won Florida's 25 electoral votes - and probably New Hampshire's 4 - if Nader hadn't run, or if he hadn't run intentionally helping Bush. my note here: by "intentionally" he's saying that Nader forced Gore to spend more time and money in places where Bush probably wasn't going to winEither state's electoral votes added to Gore's 266 "official" total would have given Gore enough to win the White House - 270 (with New Hampshire's) 291 (with Florida's) or 295 with both. "

I think it is quite possible that without Nader, Gore would have won.