Nader Votes Forces Kerry to GO RIGHT to WIN. Ideas On What Kerry Must Do?

[Raya]

With Nader taking the independent vote on the Left it appears an absolute necessity for Kerry to take steps to capture right-leaning swing voters.

How does Kerry do this. He cannot change his record of 20 years of support for liberal and progressive causes, so he must put forward specific proposals that appeal to niche groups on the right or emphasize aspect of his bio that could capture new voter segments.

Looks like election 2000 all over unless Kerry acts decisively.

Any ideas as to what he should do?

[GreenArrow]

1. I don't think Nader will be much of a factor

but Kerry could try appeasing some potential voters on the left, thus nullifying Nader's arguments. Oops, I forgot, the left is as good as dead in this country, (in spite of being correct in its criticisms of the Bush regime while Kerry was busy supporting many of this same regime's most dishonest and unpopular proposals,) so why not try appealing to the right.

[Raya]

3. That a repeat of Gore. People saying Nader in Polls are not rational

[GreenArrow]

18. I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense

"People saying Nader in Polls are not rational"

People saying Nader in polls what?

[Raya]

35. People who are tell pollsters that they will vote Nader are not

necessarily giving a well considered opinion, just like many who
say Bush or Kerry. The Nader 6% are likely just anti-kerry and anti-Bush and may not be expected to vote for Nader in Nov. but they
want to make a point.

Just as the statement that Kerry is Bush-lite is not rational, many
anti-kerry sentiment is based on rumor and bias not specific facts
and analysis.

[vi5]

2. I think just the opposite....

I think if anything that is what Gore did in 2000 and it cost him.

I think if Nader and his supporters sense that Kerry is at least making overtures to the liberal base that they will at some crucial point throw their support behind him. At this point, Bush's 45% is not going anywhere no matter what. So Kerry just needs to keep what he has, and make overtures to that Nader 6% and he's golden.

I'm not saying he should full on lurch left, but there's more of a concrete theory for doing that than going right.

[Vladimir]

7. Yes yes yes, a hundred times yes

Kerry is running against the right. You don't do that by pandering to them - you do it by winning the arguments. And if we can't do that now, then we are fucked beyond all recovery anyhow.

Actually, I don't think Nader will matter. The 6% are making a point, but I would wager that most will vote Democratic in November. Shifting to the right is the only thing likely to change that.

V

[Raya]

8. Sadly if being "The most LIBERAL SENATOR" is not enough, nothing will

help for some folk whose minds are poisoned by either anti-kerry
or "Dems and Repubs both captives to Corporate" propaganda.

As long as Nader is on list they will say Nader to pollsters and
keep Kerry numbers down. Kerry has to go after groups that are not
so poisoned against him as to ignore his life of service to the common man.

[debsianben]

34. Maybe they're smart enough to know...

....that "the most liberal Senator" is Republican hype unjustifiable by reference to facts.

Would "the most liberal Senator" vote for NAFTA?

Would "the most liberal Senator" vote for the Patriot Act?

Would "the most liberal Senator" vote for the union-busting Homeland Security Bill?

Would "the most liberal Senator" vote for Bush's 'No Child Left Behind'(NCLB) assault on public education?

Would "the most liberal Senator" vote for the invasion of Iraq?
Would "the most liberal Senator" help spread Bush's lies about WMDs before the war?
Would "the most liberal Senator" say over and over again that (although he would like to internationalize the occupation) he will keep American soldiers in Iraq for 'as long as it takes?'

Would "the most liberal Senator" take hundreds of thousands of dollars in corporate campaign contributions?

None of these things are controversial. If you're ABB and will hold your nose and vote for Kerry (just as you would have held your nose and voted for Leibermann if he had been the nominee) that's fine, but don't even pretend that "the most liberal Senator" thing is anything but a cheap Republican lie.

[Raya]

52. Maybe that Propaganda makes it impossible for Detractors to say "KERRY"

rather than "NADER" when pollsters call.

The chances of Democrats are dwindling because of this endless
and poisonous spin from the left.

[debsianben]

53. I'm Confused

You call this "propaganda" and "poisonous spin." All I did was list a few of his votes that total falsify the notion that he's "the most liberal Senator", and mention a couple of his oft-repeated public policy positions. There was nothing in there that Kerry has ever denied. He really did vote for NAFTA. He really did vote for the Patriot Act. He really did vote for the Homeland Security Bill. He really did vote for NCLB. He really did vote for the IWR. He really did publicly claim before the war that Iraq's WMDs were a threat to the US. He really does want to keep the troops in Iraq since "now that we're there, we can't just leave." These are all real votes that he cast, real things that he's said.

My only point was that this record is rationally incompatible with calling him "the most liberal Senator," so this latter claim has to be considered as a typical Republican lie. I suspect that Senator Kerry himself, who avoids the term "liberal," would agree with me that calling Kerry "the most liberal Senator" is a silly Republican lie.

Be specific. What about all of this do you regard as "poisonous" "propaganda" or even untrue?

[NightTrain]

64. Kerry can do what he wants; the man has my vote regardless.

GIVE 'EM HELL, KERRY! :kick:

[goodhue]

4. go left

[mgc1961]

5. I have a radical idea.

Why doesn't he move left thereby getting the supposed Nader-leaning independent Left votes.

[Raya]

10. Gore tried that. It just made him look desperate, and it failed.

[mgc1961]

16. Gore didn't do jack...

...to attract me. That's why I voted Green then and may do so again.

[Frances]

23. Vote Green in 2004?

I don't think the Green Party will have a presidential candidate. In fact, the greens may endorse Kerry. What will you do then?

(Nader is not running as a green. Nader is running as Nader the Nut)

[ordentros]

61. not!

the local Greens said they would NEVER endorse Kerry... one guy tried to get them to do that if Kerry came out strong for renewable energy...

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

31. actually, it helped Gore

when he went populist ("i will fight for you")starting at the convention, he pulled ahead. it wasn't until the "oh, i gree with george" debate that he lost that lead and fell within the margin of error for vote theft

people forget that al led chimpy in the polls for a few months in 2000

[Ficus]

33. I don't remember Gore going left

he went right. That is why he lost, IMO.

[lams712]

40. When Gore did it it was...

...too little too late. It seemed insincere. But it did work. MOst polls had Bush winning by a couple points and Nader was at 5-7%. On election day Gore beat Bush and Nader ended w/ less than 3%.

[zoeyfong]

50. Distancing himself from Clinton and choosing Lieberman for VP

in order to shake the so-called 'liberal' tag and get 'centrist' voters made him look weak and desparate and it failed. When exactly did gore move left?

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. He should pre-empt Edwards' Neighborhood TIPS program

It's not like the one bush wanted, depending on tv repairmen and letter carriers. The Edwards plan is neighbor-driven, it empowers neighbors to police each other for suspected potential terror sympathies.

Maybe a President's Anti-Terror Award for high-schoolers who come up with the best project to root out terrorists in the Homeland.

There could even be a Fair, with kids from all over the country competing, and sharing anti-Terror tips.

[MadHound]

9. Yes, take a look at the writing on the wall, plain before you,

And go left. Look, a lot of the people who will vote Green or Nader are disaffected, disgusted Dems who are fed up with the rightward tilt the party is taking. Co-opt a couple of planks from the Green platform, like universal health care, and these folks will come back to the party in droves, thus voting the Dems in. If you offer universal health care also to those who are non-voters, you could pick up 20-25 percent of the non-voting public. Why, because a lot of non-voters are so poor and downtrodden that they feel that no matter who is in office, they're going to get shit on, so what's the point of voting. That would be an additional 12 million votes, thus guaranteeing a landslide for Kerry.

It is all about compromise and giving people something to vote for, rather than simply saying that we must vote against. Fearmongering and bully boy tactics have long grown stale and lost their impact. But if you involve the disaffected and non voter, giving them something to vote for, then you have a winning strategy for any election.

Going further right is political suicide. Look what happened in '00 and '02. DLC Dems steered right, and the base stayed home in droves, and the Dems were handed their ass for breakfast. Instead, co-opt a left leaning plank or two, giving people something to vote for, and you have a victorius election. If people want a party more be more right than the Dems, it doesn't matter what the Dems do, those folks will vote 'Pug.

But hey, I thought that the party would have learned that lesson in '00 and '02. I guess not, is it time for a remedial lesson:shrug:

[mgc1961]

14. I agree. Good grief...

...just throw them/us a substantial bone or two and I'll consider Kerry.

[MadHound]

38. It is called the art of compromise

The only problem is that the Dems expect us to be the only ones who practice it. But this is a two way street folks, everybody has to give a little to get a lot. Simply demanding that the compromise be a one way street is what got the Dems into this hole in the first place. Expecting it to continue to be a one way street will only dig that hole deeper.

[sandnsea]

11. Mainstream vs. extreme

Education and health care are mainstream.
Civil rights are mainstream.
Sensible crime sentencing is mainstream.
Cops on the streets is mainstream.
Abortion rights is mainstream.
Kerry's voting record on social issues is mainstream. His only real non-mainstream view is the death penalty and that's not that important at the federal level.

Bush thinks he's going to get the small business vote? Kerry sat on the Small Business Committee for almost 10 years. He's participated in passing most of the legislation that is helping small business. He wants small business to have a cabinet level position.

Military budgets? Most people know there's a ton of waste in the defense dept. Alot of what he voted against has since proven to be a waste of money.

He doesn't need to move in any direction at all. He's mainstream, the Republican party has moved to the extreme.

That's all we need to do. And the left that wants socialized medicine and protectionist trade policies are just going to have to be convinced that they won't work.

That's the way I hope this election plays out.

[DuctapeFatwa]

13. Cops on the street is good. bush has the states just about broke, cities

need more police to lock up the increasing numbers of homeless.

[chiburb]

12. How many states do you think Nader's name will...

even be on the ballot?

Btw, this "independent left vote" isn't going to Nader. Why do you assume otherwise?

[Sensitivity]

19. Unfortunately the Media is forcing Nader name on Polls regardless of

whether he qualifies for the ballot. Before we know it there
is going to be a public perception that Kerry is falling and can't
get back up.

[Forkboy]

15. pfffffffffffffft

[Sensitivity]

17. Must Choose Moderate-to-Conservative V.P. Kerry Record too Liberal

for him to propose anything significantly appealing to the right
without a running mate with a less liberal record.

Maybe he should be floating names like Nunn or Breaux, even Dean would
give him more appeal to the middle.

[sandnsea]

22. Liberal how?

How is his record more liberal than the average Americans?

[genius]

25. Kerry's record is too conservative. He should stop listening to Frisk

The Republican leader should not be able to determine Kerry's agenda. That will cost Kerry votes. Kerry's voting record over the last three years has been atrociously conservative. Kennedy has voted correctly over and over again while Kerry has voted for Bush's right wing agenda. He needs our forgiveness and Frisk knows that if Kerry pulls right he'll lose. He needs to run with Kucinich. Only by difussing Nader will he win.

[WiseMen]

29. The Fact that Kerry is ranked the MOST LIBERAL SENATOR but is still

slammed for being "CONSERVATIVE" by some is very telling. The hopes
of a Democratic landslide that could possibly recover the congress
has been totally screwed by Nader and like detractors.

It is unlikely that Kerry can do anything he truly believes in that
would satisfy his detractors to the Left. I am personally far to the
left of the American electorate, but I am informed enought to know
that the electorate is far to the right of a world-wide "Center."

For the sake of the Party, Kerry has to be hard-headed and do what
it takes to capture the middle. That will make the Naderites even
angrier, but the damage has already been done. Kerry has no choice
anymore.

[Raya]

48. Clark may work topull more Independent vote

[genius]

20. NONSENSE. Going right is a guraranteed loss. Going left will win him

the election. Most voters on the left are planning to vote for him instead of Nader and this is why Kerry is still strong. If he goes right, he'll push people over to Nader and that would be a mistake.

[Guava Jelly]

21. Remenber in 2000

Nader was supposed to take a larger Chunk out of Gores Actual leads but in most cases they didn't.Quite a few Naderites when they got to the polls Counldn't pull the lever for Ralph , they knew America couldn't take 4 years of George Bush .Now 3 years later Naderites have seen Bushs America....
Ya think they will pull for Ralph if there is a tiny chance of 4 more Bush??

[Mairead]

24. Are you guys working for Bush, or what?

I can't believe I'm reading all this 'we must move right!' hysteria. Whose purposes are you serving?

[chiburb]

27. Posted by the same types that said of Lieberman...

Well, you know what they said.

:-)

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. If Kerry moves right

A slew of people will have to force themselves to go through the motions of working for him. We will, but it will be against stiff internal resistance. And unlike the act of simply voting, resistance is a major factor in campaigning. If it feels like my duty, I will treat it the way I treated homework in High School. I will keep putting it off and not really give it a dedicated effort. Multiply that experience by thousands of activists, and it will hurt Kerry.

More important than that even, if Kerry moves right, the argument against voting for Nader weakens. Not in my mind of course, but for those who think it is a big compromise to even consider voting Democratic in the first place rather than Green or something beyond. Not to mention the stay at homers. We lose more than we gain in votes by moving right from Nader.

[David Zephyr]

28. A Recipe for Disaster. Kerry Must Stay Left.

Or Nader's 6% will grow...and it will come from Democrats, not Republicans.

[MoonRiver]

30. That makes no sense. Nader is a nobody.

The polls that everybody is in such a frenzy about were taken just after days and days of media hype about Nader. Their results simply reflect that attention. Nader has no party behind him, probably little money, and will shortly fade away into 3rd candidate obscurity.

In terms of going right or left, Kerry should just be Kerry. He has an excellent liberal voting record, and I don't want him to pretend to be something he's not.

[WiseMen]

32. Agree Kerry is Liberal in best sence of the word. But Party has to win or

the nations future is lost. Kerry is a partriot and will wage this
war to win, not just to satisfy is personal tendencies.

I believe he will accept platform and strategy changes for the sake
of the nation. Without grassroots support from the left that he
seeks he has no choice but to develop another winning strategy.

Nader role essentially hobbles a grassroots progressive movement
behind Kerry.

[Forkboy]

36. Nader isn't hobbling anything

Using him as an excuse to tack right is so pathetic I have to openly wonder if this idea wasn't hatched by right-wingers and then spread by the gullible.

[MoonRiver]

37. I could be wrong, but I think people want a liberal in the presidency.

Even some moderate Repubs might feel this way. There's such a real and deep horror with what * has done to this country, that people are starting to believe it will take someone who's almost his philosophical opposite to fix the mess. Except for the Patriot Act and IWR votes Kerry has presented himself as the clear alternative to *. I don't want him to lose that powerful image.

[Raya]

41. Stick to the NUMBERS. Kerry up 5-12 points w/out Nader. Even w/out Nader

So we know that the country is spit down the middle with 45% wanting
a Conservative President and 45% wanting a Liberal President. Kerry is pulling most of the swing vote, but with Nader taking 6 points on the Left Kerry now needs to get eve more of the middle to beat Bush.

Clearly a majority want a Liberal President. But Nader splits that
majority and puts a liberal win in danger -- just like in 2000.

[MoonRiver]

47. I think the Nader support is going to die down after the media blitz

surrounding him is over, which I think it already is. The most important factor, imho, is getting out the vote. These primaries pulled huge numbers of people to the polls. And, they voted for Kerry! That's a very important message.

[lams712]

39. You act as if Nader is taking away a huge % of vote----HE'S NOT

At best he's polling at 6%. As election day get closer, that will go down, just like in 2000. Not all of Nader's support comes from the left, and certainly not all people on the left support Nader. IT'S WAY TOO EARLY TO WRITE OFF ALL SUPPORT OF THE LEFT AUTOMATICALLY GOING TO NADER.

Kerry DOES NOT HAVE TO GO RIGHT. If that does happen, then Nader's numbers can go up. Kerry needs to try to keep the liberal side together, not alienate anyone.

[Raya]

42. You MISS THE POINT. Kerry can't count on November. He must ACT NOW to

change the electoral dynamics as reflected in the polls,
or he will continue to slide the way Dean did as soon as he
lost the confidence of Dems in Iowa.

Kerry will be totaly irresponsible not to act quickly. He must
have learned his lesson from last year when he ignored his early
slide against Dean in the summer.

[lams712]

45. I'm saying he can, the numbers for a liberal candidate are there...

....Gore & Nader got 52% of the vote in 2000. Things are much worse than that now. People are motivated and turnout will be high. Nader can be neutralized if Kerry doen't go right. Kerry doesn't need to. Kerry can act quickly and stay where he is, which is pretty liberal (not enough for me personally, but good enough to keep me in the Democratic fold).

[Raya]

46. Kerry has to ACT or Fall to Bush Attack the way he fell to Dean Attacks

last year. He was damned by the media who boosted Dean and
denegrated Kerry for not doing anything about Dean last summer.

[sandnsea]

43. It's pscyhologically damaging

It perpetuates the myth that the country is split. We went from Kerry having a large lead to "neck and neck". That's not good for Democrats anywhere in this country. Don't you see how much better it would be if polls were consistently 51-46???? That would actually give Kerry the leverage to talk about more liberal issues. But not with a "neck and neck" race. It makes the centrists nervous and makes them not want to rock the boat. This just pisses me off no end.

[nolabels]

44. There is no real issues to go after just now, so to find a negative spin

Who or what do you think they would have enter the picture?

Just yesterday I reading a piece on how difficult a time they having in looking for a real wedge to use on Kerry, because he was so all over the map.

That struck me as no coincidence, since the Republican Machine has laid broadside to at least one or more interests for anybody who resides in the United States.

[zoeyfong]

49. OMG. Is there anything that doesn't 'force' dems to go right?

So, if nader is taking votes on the left, dems must go right? They needn't do anything to actually win nader's votes? How is it that repugs manage to do a whole lot more for their base (and they are proud to brag about it) than dems do for their base, and still get elected? I suspect this post is a troll; yet another scare tactic to get non-kerry supporters to vote for him, indicating again how far 'off-base' this party is.

[Raya]

51. Do You Think the "Most Liberal" Senator Can go more Left to get

Left-wing detractors? Isn't that real madness?

We have to wake-up to what country we are living in.

I Kerry was Lieberman, or even Dean you could concieve of him going
Left to placate Nader. But he did not have a long liberal record.

[debsianben]

54. He voted for NAFTA, the Patriot Act, the IWR,

NCLB, for the creation of the DHS, etc.

Why are you taking the Republican propaganda about his "long liberal voting record" so seriously?

Look, even if Joe Liebermann was the Democratic nominee, the Republicans would be claiming that Liebermann had a "long liberal voting record." Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans under those circumstances cobbled together a few votes here and there against Republican bills and tried to claim that Liebermann was "the most liberal Senator." I mean, these people have no shame.

Here are ways that Kerry could "move left to placate Nader"(and the 2.7 million people who voted for Nader last time):

1.He could abandon his lifelong support for "free trade," specifically by calling for the US to leave NAFTA, an agreement which Naderites despise and which has never been particularly popular among the population in general.

2.He could advocate Canadian-style national health care, which polls show most Americans support.

3.He could release a statement in which he said, in clear and simple terms,

"Since I have now admitted that the IWR was a terrible mistake, and, as I said of Vietnam back in 1971, it is impossible to ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake, I will not keep the troops in Iraq a day longer if I am elected. When you' realize you're going in the wrong direction, you don't speed up. If it was a mistake to go in, it is a mistake to stay. In this election, you have a clear choice. A vote for George W. Bush is a vote for more Americans and Iraqis die. A vote for me is a vote for immediate withdrawal."

Of course, far from the Republican lie that he is "the most liberal Senator", he is actually a banally typical DLC-type Democrat, so I'm not holding my breath. Still, I would predict that if he made these moves, not only would millions of potential Nader voters be won over to his side, but so would millions people who might otherwise vote stay home or even vote Republican based on peripheral cultural or "values" issues.

[Raya]

55. And he is still the "Most Liberal Senator". Just shows how "Wedge" attacks

on Kerry positions are.

[debsianben]

57. Some Senators voted against the invasion of Iraq, so

I'd say they are more liberal than Kerry. In fact, didn't a majority of Democratic Senators vote against the IWR? I know a majority of Dems in the House voted against it.

It's just ridiculous to say that Kerry was or is "the most liberal Senator" when he voted with the conservatives on one of the most important votes in terms of differentiating between the conservative and liberal wings of the Democratic Party!

[Iverson]

56. secret intercepted transcript

SPOOK1: Here's the mail. So Kerry looks like he has the Dem nomination sewn up. What's the skinny on his campaign strategy?

SPOOK2: Wait a sec. I just got a report that says a few people in a poll said they'd vote for Nader.

SPOOK1: Jumping Jehosaphat! That forces Kerry to run to the right.

SPOOK2: Yep, that proves it.

SPOOK1: Hey, I just had a thought. What if Kerry stayed the same or ran to the left?

SPOOK2: (into cell phone) Security, I'd like to report an impermissible thought in Sector B.

(end of intercepted transcript)

[BringEmOn]

58. Leave a trail of bread crumbs

so he can find his way home. He's been running to the right, and away from the liberal label, faster than Bush running away on 9-11. I hope he intends to come back.

[adamrsilva]

59. One word: Immigration

.

[MurikanDemocrat]

60. You give Nader far too much credit. He can't even get on the ballot in

most states. The majority of those who voted for Nader last time have already vowed to vote Democratic this time, so right off the bat we know he is going to have LESS of an impact on this election, not MORE.

Nevertheless, campaigns always tack towards the center for the swing voters before an election, and that is what Kerry will do. That is what Bush did in 2000 as well.

[NightTrain]

65. You speak the truth!

Particularly in this regard:

<<The majority of those who voted for Nader last time have already vowed to vote Democratic this time>>

And I'm one of those people! Give 'em hell, Kerry!!!

[ordentros]

62. perhaps...

but Nader could also take the independent vote on the right, i.e. those who don't like the democrats, are upset with the republicans, and want to cast a protest vote.

[shivaji]

63. Nader is no problem maan, with our Mr. Electable

but seriously, Dean would have made Nader irrelevant.
Kerry will be caught between a rock and a hard place.
If he goes left to compete with Nader, he loses the
middle and right, if he strays right, he alienates the
left and the base.

[Raya]

66. Look like far-left defaults to Nader regardless of what Kerry does

How else could you explain Nader immediately garnering 4-6%.

[charlie]

67. If you keep having these hand-flapping vapors

with every blip in Kerry's fortunes, you're not gonna make it to November. Slow down, these polls don't mean he has to cut right.

[WiseMen]

68. Kerry has to penetrate Bush's national security advantage. Fraud of

Bush as good 9/11 president most be exposed.