Why would someone who would vote for Nader vote for Kerry...

[CTLawGuy]

should Nader happen to drop out?

First, why does someone vote for Nader?

The most likely answer is that the voter dislikes both major party candidates but wants to register a vote anyway.

Second, does someone who votes for Nader hate Bush?

Yes, otherwise the voter would VOTE FOR BUSH. If he liked Bush, and would otherwise want to see him win, then voting for Nader would be counterproductive - in the same manner as if he wanted Kerry to win but voted for Nader. The key is, the voter also dislikes Kerry to the point that he can't vote for him.

Third, where would the voter go if Nader did not run?

The flawed assumption that I held, and that drove my philosophy of how to win campaigns back in 2000 was that - the electorate is fixed. Those who vote regularly can be counted on to vote again, no matter what. This is wrong.

Under that assumption, without Nader in the race, a leftist would go with his next logical choice, Kerry. This logic is the basis for blaming Nader for Gore's loss.

If the electorate is not fixed and Nader drops out, then the leftist voter would not vote. He'd leave the electorate. This is the most logical thing to do.

This is his thought process:

"I hate Bush, so I don't vote for Bush. He is likely to win the election, however."

"I dislike Kerry, though slightly less than Bush. He is bad enough that I will not vote FOR him. Kerry is the ONLY other candidate likely to win the election."

"I agree with Nader. I think he is the best choice of all the candidates and he is good enough to keep me motivated to vote FOR him. He is not likely to win the election however."

"Though I like Kerry slightly better than Bush, the reason I don't vote for him is because I do not want to reward him with my vote. I do not want him to be president, regardless of who the alternative is."

"Therefore, it is true that I want neither of the likely winners to be president, otherwise I would vote for the one I wanted."

"If for some reason, I hated Bush MUCH more than Kerry, I would vote for Kerry in order to stop Bush. I will vote for Nader because, to me, Kerry and Bush are equal bads. I would equally hate either one becoming president."

"If Nader dropped out, and I am free to leave the electorate, I would realize that the only choices are two people whom I don't want to be president. If I won't vote for either of them, I won't vote."


________________________________________

Anyone who votes for Nader (some people will openly support him and then go into the booth and pull for Kerry) will only do so because he or she does not care whether Kerry or Bush wins. They are both equally as bad. People UNDERSTAND that if they REALLY don't want Bush to win they have to vote for Kerry, and vice versa. It must be true that Nader voters do not care who wins.

The point is that Kerry supporters will never sway any Nader supporter without making Kerry appeal to that person. You cannot shame and scare any Nader voter to your side.

[mzmolly]

1. Yer Right.

;)

[KenLayedOff]

2. Gay marriage is a really big deal

There is NO good excuse to not support it fully. Kerry needs to get on board with it.

[rainstan]

3. Nader's ego

Ralf has lost it. He doesn't understand that if Shrub wins there may not even be another election for him to be a candidate in. He couldn't get along with the Greens how in the H does he think he could run the country.

[newyawker99]

4. Hi rainstan!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. The idea that the difference between the two parties is slight,

that it doesn't matter much whether there is a Democrat or Republican in the White House -- that idea seemed to make a lot of sense in 2000.

We had 8 years of a Democratic administration - and one of the most pro-corporate administrations ever. A serious lack of leadership on the most pressing environmental issues. What looked like lip-service at best to liberal ideals. And a super-slick President who seemed like he was able to adopt literally any position and sell it convincingly.

So looking at recent history, folks had nothing to say to them: you need to vote for the Democrat.

But now, we have the 'benefit' of the Bush administration. When the contrast between the most-corporate-owned Democratic administration ever and the current Republican adminstration is so stark, so glaring -- the argument that the parties are the same seems ridiculous.

[jpgray]

6. BS. Polls from 2000 showed many Nader voters would have gone for Gore

According to exit polls, Nader's votes would have broken down as follows:

1,326,159 (46%) would have picked Gore
893,716 (31%) would have sat out the election.
663,080 (23%) would have favored Bush.
2,882,955 (100%) total

So your premise that Nader voters wouldn't vote for the Democrat anyway is false--many voters who would have voted for Gore without Nader in the race voted for Nader in 2000.

edit: However I DON'T believe that third parties should be intimidated out of running. I just think we need to stay informed about the impact their running has on the election. 2000 proved they have a big impact, and Kerry would do well not to alienate folks this time around into voting for Nader.

[WiseMen]

7. Exactly! BS, Double BS. Why Excuse Nader's obvious bolstering of Bush

[jpgray]

8. It's very indirect bolstering--Nader should run if he wants

Kerry needs to realize that some Dem voters voted for Nader in 2000. That's not Nader's fault, nor is it Gore's. We just have to recognize the impact of this and take whatever steps we can to prevent losing the votes. Conversely, Nader voters who would otherwise vote Democratic (a significant percentage of Nader voters in 2000) should consider that their votes may be very important to Kerry in 2004.

Third parties should run when they want, and people should vote for them when they want. But to say third party voters never would vote Democratic is false, because the evidence proves the opposite. That's what people need to be informed about so they can best make their decision.