About 500-some votes in Florida made one hell of a difference four years ago, Athena. What percentage of a hundred million (or whatever it was) is 500?
The only reason that Nader got any votes in 2000 was that the left was pretty sure Bush didn't have a chance in hell of getting into office, so it was "safe" to vote for Nader.
From their standpoint, that was a mistake. In fact, to hear some of them talk, it was a flat-out disaster.
I don't think many of the people who voted for Nader in 2000 will do it again. I would be shocked if he got anywhere near 1%. Saying Nader will get "less than 1%" of the vote is like saying you live "somewhere in Michigan." Accurate as far as it goes, but far from specific enough to be relevant.
Depends on how it plays out - right now, the Democrats are all about how unified and energized they are. Personally, I don't buy that - they're mad as hell, to be sure, but I don't see much unity, nor do I see much energy on the ground (they do have money-energy - the ability to pull in bucks from very well-heeled people and groups so they can run ads, but I don't see a grass-roots surge for the Democrats anywhere - certainly nowhere near the massive grassroots effort appearing on the GOP side).
If Kerry is a good candidate, then the Democrats wouldn't have complained so loudly about Nader entering - could be that someone's looked at the internal polls and seen that even in the "blue" States, Kerry isn't such a hot commodity. Still, if Kerry does turn out to be a challenge for President Bush, then I don't think Nader will even get half a percent of the vote. On the other hand, if Kerry turns out to be easily boxed in and beaten, and this is visible by, say, early September, then Nader might very well surge towards the end as the left gives up Kerry as a lost cause and decides to vote their hearts. The left, by the way, is Nader - the pettifogging, mean-spirited little Leninist who is sure he knows better than anyone...they might be shouting about Nader being a spoiler now, but in their heart of hearts, he's the sort of man they admire more than any other. They'll vote for him, if they see no chance of getting President Bush out.
Jerry has it right: without the muscle of the Green Party--not that they're all that muscular, but they have some--Nader will have trouble making it onto the ballot in many states. In fact, all Nader will do is pull votes away from the Greens, will likely put up some candidate of their own, who no one will have heard of and who will have trouble pulling as many votes as the Libertarian candidate.
If Nader wanted to be more than a gadfly, he would have tried for the Democratic nomination, and then run as an independent. All he wants is attention.
Connie: I'll make you the bet right now that he pulls less than 1%. Six-pack of the winner's choice is the bet. You in?
Not if your goal is to split off the left wing of the Democratic Party and fuse it with the Greens and the assorted other minor leftist groups - the subcurrent I've picked up from the leftwing of the Democratic Party has been growing disatisfaction with the Democratic Party...Dean tapped into this, Kerry is trying to tap into it (with enough success, so far, to give him mostly plurality wins in the Democratic primaries) - but the true-blue leftist wants red meat...they really think that President Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11, that Iraq was designed for getting contracts for Haliburton and that President Bush really is Hitler...and they are annoyed as all get-out when the Democratic leadership doesn't come right out and say these things.
The left can be kept on the Democratic ranch - but only if the eventual nominee runs left...he does, he loses; big time - but the left doesn't see it that way. In addition to their other delusions, they have convinced themselves that just as soon as a major player comes out with their policy proposals, the American people will fall all over themselves embracing them. So, if John Kerry proves a milktoast candidate who eventually starts just being a punching bag for the GOP, then the left will convince itself that its votes are better given to someone more in tune with their ideas, with a mind towards 2008 and beyond.
Nader can, in the right circumstances, take a huge bloc of the Democratic Party with him - in the long run, this would be healthy for the Democratic Party, because purged of the left they could start to rebuild a genuine political party which is competitive in the "red" States. The more likely outcome is that Kerry appears to keep it close up to the end, and thus the left keeps behind him as even though Kerry isn't their man, he at least isn't President Bush (ie, Evil incarnate). But if the tracking polls show Kerry hopelessly behind by early September....then, watch out!
I have a really really really hard time believing that any Democrat - far left, left, moderate - will be inclined to vote for Nader, given what the last four years have been like.
The voting process will be a bigger issue (regardless of what the media reports) than Ralph Nader.
I'm writing as an Irishman (hardly the most democratic of countries) and i have to say that I find the American system of election to be very odd and a slight bit undemocratic. Perhaps someone can explain to me what is the reason for the Electoral College System.
And does it strike Americans as strange that all they have a choice of is Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee. Two very similiar parties and their very similiar candidates. Perhaps a different candidate is just what is needed
The fact that people blame Ralph Nader for Bush's victory really shows what a spineless gutless entity the Democratic Party has turnedinto
All the Electoral College ultimately does is give form to the fact that elections are done state-by-state, not nationally.
And while I don't know anything about Ireland's political system, if its anything like Britain's "Can't vote for an individual, the Party is all, you offended the Party, you just lost your office even though your popular in your district" system, then you have alot of nerve complaining about American elections being undemocratic.
Our American Constitutional system is indeed un-democratic -- by design. Our Founding Fathers were an elite of classically-educated wealthy merchants and landowning aristocrats who abhorred the tyranny of a mob every bit as much as that of a king, and designed our Constitution accordingly.
"...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
-James Madison
The Senate gives equal representation to each state regardless of population, thus Wyoming has as much clout as New York, Alaska as much as California. (By the way, this provision of our Constitution can never be changed even by amendment -- extremely conservative.)
The Electoral College is also set up, though in a much more complicated way, to see that states and regions are represented so that, e.g., a candidate cannot win by getting the East Coast while writing off all the rest of the country, which is what would happen if we elected our President through popular vote alone.
And then there's that hated Supreme Court which dares to protect the Constitutional rights of unpopular minorities such as homosexuals.
Ironically, it was that very same Supreme Court which, quite rightly, ruled that, based on Electoral and not popular votes, George W. Bush is lawfully the President of the United States -- the very same President George W. Bush who demagogues against evil "judicial activists" overriding The Will Of The People.
Why thank you Steve Malcolm Anderson etc etc that is the answer that i was looking for, that makes a heap load of sense. Oh and by the way I always thought the system of two legislatures and the total seperation of executive and legislature in the American government to be a fantastic idea, far better than the Irish/UK parlimentary system.
Nader is a not going to be a spoiler this time, but I think there is a fair share of Deaniacs who will want to "send a message." Nader may the candidate du jour for that purpose.
OK, he doesn't get 1%. Does he beat the Green nominee? The Libertarian? Constitution? Does he make the difference in any state? Nationally, via the electoral college? These are the "critical" questions.
For the record, my answers:
No, No, No, Yes, No. He beats Hagelin, though. I expect Judge Moore to get the most "3rd party" votes as the Constitution nominee, then Libertarian, then Green and Nader, then Hagelin. (Green will be weak because of last time, and because Kerry is more "acceptable" to them than Gore was. Constitution and Libertarian pick up from last time because of annoyance with Bush on the fringes of the right.)
Do you think that the 1% will make a difference either way?
Really going out on a limb there, eh Dean?
How many of the ballots you think he will be on?
How many geriatrics in Broward County Florida do you think will accidently vote for Buchanan this year?
Now those are much more difficult, and entertaining predictions.
About 500-some votes in Florida made one hell of a difference four years ago, Athena. What percentage of a hundred million (or whatever it was) is 500?
Yippee ky-yaaaaah! It's hanging-chad time again!
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
The only reason that Nader got any votes in 2000 was that the left was pretty sure Bush didn't have a chance in hell of getting into office, so it was "safe" to vote for Nader.
From their standpoint, that was a mistake. In fact, to hear some of them talk, it was a flat-out disaster.
I don't think many of the people who voted for Nader in 2000 will do it again. I would be shocked if he got anywhere near 1%. Saying Nader will get "less than 1%" of the vote is like saying you live "somewhere in Michigan." Accurate as far as it goes, but far from specific enough to be relevant.
He promised to pick on the Republicans this time...
so I hear.
It's probably us Republicans who will give Ralphie his money. If we're smart.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I dunno, Dean. Recent polls say that he'll pull about 3%. Enough to give Bush a win in November. So, I'm geeked.
But, Kevin, first he has to get his name on enough state ballots.
And since he isn't the Green candidate this time around, that will most likely be fairly difficult.
Deam, I'm guessing that's one of the reasons for your prediction?
1.1% then you owe me a package of Fritos™.
Good lord, I hope he gets nowhere _near_ 1%. I'm hoping for 0.000001% or so.
Depends on how it plays out - right now, the Democrats are all about how unified and energized they are. Personally, I don't buy that - they're mad as hell, to be sure, but I don't see much unity, nor do I see much energy on the ground (they do have money-energy - the ability to pull in bucks from very well-heeled people and groups so they can run ads, but I don't see a grass-roots surge for the Democrats anywhere - certainly nowhere near the massive grassroots effort appearing on the GOP side).
If Kerry is a good candidate, then the Democrats wouldn't have complained so loudly about Nader entering - could be that someone's looked at the internal polls and seen that even in the "blue" States, Kerry isn't such a hot commodity. Still, if Kerry does turn out to be a challenge for President Bush, then I don't think Nader will even get half a percent of the vote. On the other hand, if Kerry turns out to be easily boxed in and beaten, and this is visible by, say, early September, then Nader might very well surge towards the end as the left gives up Kerry as a lost cause and decides to vote their hearts. The left, by the way, is Nader - the pettifogging, mean-spirited little Leninist who is sure he knows better than anyone...they might be shouting about Nader being a spoiler now, but in their heart of hearts, he's the sort of man they admire more than any other. They'll vote for him, if they see no chance of getting President Bush out.
Jerry has it right: without the muscle of the Green Party--not that they're all that muscular, but they have some--Nader will have trouble making it onto the ballot in many states. In fact, all Nader will do is pull votes away from the Greens, will likely put up some candidate of their own, who no one will have heard of and who will have trouble pulling as many votes as the Libertarian candidate.
If Nader wanted to be more than a gadfly, he would have tried for the Democratic nomination, and then run as an independent. All he wants is attention.
Connie: I'll make you the bet right now that he pulls less than 1%. Six-pack of the winner's choice is the bet. You in?
But Arnold's right too -- if that 1% happens to come in close states, it could be the difference between an ordinary victory and a 49-state landslide.
If only Georgia weren't already pretty much guaranteed to Bush in November, I'd probably be gathering signatures for ol' Ralph myself.
Dean,
Not if your goal is to split off the left wing of the Democratic Party and fuse it with the Greens and the assorted other minor leftist groups - the subcurrent I've picked up from the leftwing of the Democratic Party has been growing disatisfaction with the Democratic Party...Dean tapped into this, Kerry is trying to tap into it (with enough success, so far, to give him mostly plurality wins in the Democratic primaries) - but the true-blue leftist wants red meat...they really think that President Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11, that Iraq was designed for getting contracts for Haliburton and that President Bush really is Hitler...and they are annoyed as all get-out when the Democratic leadership doesn't come right out and say these things.
The left can be kept on the Democratic ranch - but only if the eventual nominee runs left...he does, he loses; big time - but the left doesn't see it that way. In addition to their other delusions, they have convinced themselves that just as soon as a major player comes out with their policy proposals, the American people will fall all over themselves embracing them. So, if John Kerry proves a milktoast candidate who eventually starts just being a punching bag for the GOP, then the left will convince itself that its votes are better given to someone more in tune with their ideas, with a mind towards 2008 and beyond.
Nader can, in the right circumstances, take a huge bloc of the Democratic Party with him - in the long run, this would be healthy for the Democratic Party, because purged of the left they could start to rebuild a genuine political party which is competitive in the "red" States. The more likely outcome is that Kerry appears to keep it close up to the end, and thus the left keeps behind him as even though Kerry isn't their man, he at least isn't President Bush (ie, Evil incarnate). But if the tracking polls show Kerry hopelessly behind by early September....then, watch out!
I have a really really really hard time believing that any Democrat - far left, left, moderate - will be inclined to vote for Nader, given what the last four years have been like.
The voting process will be a bigger issue (regardless of what the media reports) than Ralph Nader.
I'm writing as an Irishman (hardly the most democratic of countries) and i have to say that I find the American system of election to be very odd and a slight bit undemocratic. Perhaps someone can explain to me what is the reason for the Electoral College System.
And does it strike Americans as strange that all they have a choice of is Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee. Two very similiar parties and their very similiar candidates. Perhaps a different candidate is just what is needed
The fact that people blame Ralph Nader for Bush's victory really shows what a spineless gutless entity the Democratic Party has turnedinto
All the Electoral College ultimately does is give form to the fact that elections are done state-by-state, not nationally.
And while I don't know anything about Ireland's political system, if its anything like Britain's "Can't vote for an individual, the Party is all, you offended the Party, you just lost your office even though your popular in your district" system, then you have alot of nerve complaining about American elections being undemocratic.
I would point metaphysician to the beginning of my statement. Are we afraid of one little question? ;->
Our American Constitutional system is indeed un-democratic -- by design. Our Founding Fathers were an elite of classically-educated wealthy merchants and landowning aristocrats who abhorred the tyranny of a mob every bit as much as that of a king, and designed our Constitution accordingly.
"...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
-James Madison
The Senate gives equal representation to each state regardless of population, thus Wyoming has as much clout as New York, Alaska as much as California. (By the way, this provision of our Constitution can never be changed even by amendment -- extremely conservative.)
The Electoral College is also set up, though in a much more complicated way, to see that states and regions are represented so that, e.g., a candidate cannot win by getting the East Coast while writing off all the rest of the country, which is what would happen if we elected our President through popular vote alone.
And then there's that hated Supreme Court which dares to protect the Constitutional rights of unpopular minorities such as homosexuals.
Ironically, it was that very same Supreme Court which, quite rightly, ruled that, based on Electoral and not popular votes, George W. Bush is lawfully the President of the United States -- the very same President George W. Bush who demagogues against evil "judicial activists" overriding The Will Of The People.
Why thank you Steve Malcolm Anderson etc etc that is the answer that i was looking for, that makes a heap load of sense. Oh and by the way I always thought the system of two legislatures and the total seperation of executive and legislature in the American government to be a fantastic idea, far better than the Irish/UK parlimentary system.
In that case, apology granted. I jumped the gun.
In.
Nader is a not going to be a spoiler this time, but I think there is a fair share of Deaniacs who will want to "send a message." Nader may the candidate du jour for that purpose.
OK, he doesn't get 1%. Does he beat the Green nominee? The Libertarian? Constitution? Does he make the difference in any state? Nationally, via the electoral college? These are the "critical" questions.
For the record, my answers:
No, No, No, Yes, No. He beats Hagelin, though. I expect Judge Moore to get the most "3rd party" votes as the Constitution nominee, then Libertarian, then Green and Nader, then Hagelin. (Green will be weak because of last time, and because Kerry is more "acceptable" to them than Gore was. Constitution and Libertarian pick up from last time because of annoyance with Bush on the fringes of the right.)
You know, if you punch him in the eye, Ralph Nader will swim away.
I think Nadar will pick up the nut vote mainly. I also find it comforting that it is the Democrats saying they are their votes.