Is a Nader 3rd-party run really that much of a threat anymore?

[Pushed To The Left]

Poll question: Is a Nader 3rd-party run really that much of a threat anymore?

I believe that there is a big difference between the 2000 Nader voters and the 2004/2008 Nader voters. Many 2000 supporters probably had no idea what the consequences would be, or how evil the Bush Administration would become. My impression of the 2004/2008 Nader voters is that they would probably just stay home or write somebody in if Nader wasn't running. People with that much hatred for the Democratic candidates are probably not going to vote Democratic in 2008 no matter what. Nader was a major factor in 2000, but he wasn't in 2004, and I believe he will be even less of a factor in 2008.

[dylan33]

1. Threat

Any third party run is a threat.

[snowbear]

5. I disagree.. not with the third party comment, but "Nader" in general.

After the last two presidential elections, he's just lost too much credibility with Independents.

He's not the Nader of yesteryear.

Bloomberg on the other hand... .... he probably does pose a threat. But I don't think we should all assume that it's the Democratic candidate he'll hurt moreso than the Republican candidate.

Not yet anyway.

I think if Bloomberg jumps in-- that after he's participated in several debates and John Q. Voter (the ones from outside of NY) get to know him.... and especially after he's selected a running mate... I think we'll have a pretty clear idea on which of the two major parties he's likely to draw from.

Should be interesting.

Well.. .. interesting or maybe frustrating?

We'll see I 'spose..

[Old and In the Way]

8. 39-30-25-1

Democrat - Bloomberg - Republican - Nader

Bloomberg pulls more moderate/conservative Democrats than Republicans, but not enough to win. Nader becomes even more irrelevant in his new career as a professional Presidential campaigner.

[MessiahRp]

2. Did he even beat David Cobb in 2004?

Nader is Irrelevant from here on in. He did what he wanted to do, screwed the Democrats in 2000 and doesn't seem to get that his moment has passed and nobody gives a damn anymore.

Rp

[Faux pas]

7. Uh, didn' t the supremes screw the dems out of the 2000 election?

Like when they handed bush the crown?

[MessiahRp]

10. Both had a hand in it...

But Nader was quite cheery about the fate of the Democracy and everything he claimed to believe in when he was able to have a hand in Bush winning Florida and hs been quite the smug asshole about it since.

Rp

[Faux pas]

13. You know, if nader had/has that much 'power' wouldn't

he be president now? Why would he waste all that power just screwing gore over? jeb, katherine harris, the supremes and a whole lot of other treasonous assholes worked in concert to give bush the office. Nader is the least guilty imho.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. it doesn't take a lot of votes to be a threat...

just a few thousand votes in a key state can make all the difference.

[martymar64]

4. Then the Democrats will have to co-opt his issues to eliminate that threat

There is a huge number of potential voters out there that don't vote now because neither party will represent them, Working people, the poor, minorities. BNeither Democrats or Republicans will represent them or champion their issues becasue they don't have the big bucks to contribute. The sad reality is that both parties cater to the wealthy elites to the detriment of everyone else and this election won't change a thing. Besides the fix is already in. The DLC will annoint Hillary and that will mobilize the Republican base and we'll lose and keep sliding into fascism.

[AlGore-08.com]

6. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

Nader is a threat IF the electoral vote is close enough that taking a single state out of play swings the election from the Democrat to the Republican.

[elocs]

9. Correct, and there are still enough who are in a pissy and pouty mood

that they did not learn anything from the election of 2000 and look what we have had for the last 6 1/2 years. If anybody here does not vote for the Democratic candidate and a Republican wins and starts another war, they will have blood on their hands also. Nader was not THE reason that Gore lost, but he was one of the reasons and a very important one. In 2000 I thought that people would vote for Nader in states that were solidly going for Bush and so did not matter. I had no idea that there would be those in Florida who were stupid enough to vote for Nader.

[last_texas_dem]

11. I think it could still be a threat

There are a lot of voters in this country with really short memories, as evidence by the way that so many fall for the same shit over and over again, as long as it's packaged and/or promoted differently.

Nader didn't have as much of an effect in '04 for a variety of reasons. People who had supported him in 2000 either realized his run didn't accomplish much beyond helping * "win", or simply dealt with the fact that Shrub was such a disaster for a country that they needed to hold their nose and vote for "the lesser of two evils." Plus, since the election wasn't as close as it had been four years earlier, the Nader factor simply didn't make a significant difference in close states. (I'm sure Ralph was disappointed about that... :eyes:)

But I could definitely see Nader being a factor in '08. Shrub won't be on the ballot and, like I said at the beginning of this post, people have very short memories. I expect to hear plenty of that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties" bullshit that kept going around in 2000, and I expect there'll be plenty of naive folks standing in line to fall for it all over again.

[skyblue]

12. When there are close elections the 3rd party candidate who can't win is the spoiler even if they

get a few hundred votes. Yes elections can be that close!!! Yes elections can be that close!!! Yes elections can be that close!!! They usually know they can't win, eg Ralph. (And I don't quite understand where Ralph would have gotten the Republican votes away from Republicans per some claims) but anyway, he took away votes from alot of totally disgusted people who could have made their vote against the Republican candidate (Bush) instead with a candidate who could have viably defeated (bush). Is it that bad to vote for the lesser of 2 evils seeing as Bush's latest veto was for embryonic stem cell research and Bush is against sex education that includes contraception other than abstinence in the 3rd world.