So what do you all think about this mans late bid for the presidency? Do you think he’s sincere, or is he part of a plot to wreck the Democrats attempt to sieze the White House?
He wants to prove he’s still relevant.
Might he simply be advocating policies he still passionately believes in, which the Democrats would water down to an unacceptable (to him) degree?
There is a word for this: Democracy.
Incidentally, I would be keenly interested in the outcome of an ultimatum like this (hypothetical) on his behalf:
*"In this election there will be one, just one, candidate who promises to implement Kyoto in full.
I just don’t know whether it will be me."*
If he feels that the US is holding the global environment to ransom, I’m sure he won’t mind doing the same to the Democrats.
his so-called campaign is nothing more than a childish display of unbridled ego.
Al Sharpton was more serious.
The trouble is, i get the impression that in the US, supporting Kyoto would lose more votes than it gains (correct me if i’m wrong). If it is also true that Nader running would make the Democrats lose, then all that him issuing that ultimatum would acheive is making sure the Democrats don’t gain office…
“So be it”, says Darth.
If the US electorate is such that they would not allow any President to implement Kyoto, then what (asks he) is the difference re. the environment between Bush & Kerry?
If he believes, as I think he does, that the environment is the most important issue in the election and the Dems refuse to countenance accepting his ultimatum, I could easily understand his heartfelt “Fuck 'em”.
It takes a very long time to bash down a brick wall using only your head.
If I were a Republican I would be sending Nader money… the way Bush is floundering this Nader BS is too good to be true for him.
I say go home Nader… retire and shut up please. The world can’t suffer 4 more years of Bush. Worse can be the further conservatisation of the US, judiciary especially. Soon it might irreversible.
Why ? For one man’s ego and ideals.
As a Bush supporter, I cackled with glee upon hearing of Nadar’s latest ego indulgence. Without a doubt, he cost Gore the White House in 2000. His presence will cause Kerry to run left further and longer into the general election than he otherwise would have. Unless the economy goes back into the tank, I think that GWB is looking at a second term.
Why shouldn’t he run? America’s a democracy.
I think deep down he’s motivated by a hatred of Democrats.
Actually, evil one, a Nader run will probably cause Kerry to move toward the center. Since Nader will be siphoning off votes on the far left, the center is the only place he can make those votes up. To attempt to compete with Nader on the far left would be folly for Kerry.
It is ironic that Nader is helping transorm the democratic party into the very thing he claims to loathe: a centrist anti-leftist party.
Well, sure, it’s democracy, but it’s also a world where one’s choices have potential consequences. And from the liberal perspective, the consequences of Nader’s last run were huge: Bush’s Presidency has been disastrous on a scale eclipsing Reagan’s.
Even in 2000, one had to be ignorant to confuse Gore with Bush. Molly Ivins, who unquestionably speaks from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, could have described the enormity of the gulf between the two to Ralph in about five minutes, if he’d had the willingness to listen. Now, of course, only 3+ years worth of amnesia, on top of the aforementioned ignorance, would explain confusing the two.
So Ralph knows what could happen if he runs, and he’s running anyway. That’s pretty loathsome.
However, I believe that this time, he’ll be lucky to even get 1% of the vote, nationwide, if the election’s at all close. If the Democratic landslide that I’m starting to see hints of the distant possibility of actually comes to pass, he might draw as much as 2%. But unlike 2000, I doubt he’ll make the difference in 2004.
It seems unfair to blame Nader for running for office in a democracy.
If it bothers you that he’ll siphon votes away from the Democrats, you should be criticizing his supporters. Nader entering the race just means people have a larger number of choices. The voters are responsible for the choices they make.
Secondly, I think the problem is not so much Nader as the first-past-the-post system of selecting a leader, in the presidential system. This is why France has run-off elections. In the first election, you vote your conscience. If no clear winner emerges, the second election is between the two most popular candidates. It’s not 100% perfect, but it does help keep the balance between voting one’s conscience and voting strategically.
Gotta agree with this 100%. I’ve never voted for Nader, and I sure want Bush out of the White House toot sweet (retroactive to January 2001, if possible), but I can’t find a reason to object to Nader’s running.
If we bar people from running for government office because we object to their views or their presence, then we’re no better than the neo-cons in Iraq. And I, for one, am unambiguously morally superior to that pack of jackels.
I’ve heard a lot of democrats mention how Kerry is likely going to win in a landslide because Bush is so hated. If that’s true, what’s the problem? Nader likely won’t cut into that unless it comes down to the wire yet again.
You aren’t expecting him to pull a Perot and walk away with 19% of the vote, are you?
Not only do I think that Nader’s share in the general election will be completely neglible, I wouldn’t surprised if he failed utterly at getting on the ballot in all 50 states.
All this Democrat hand-wringing is silly. Nader was a spoiler in 2000, but it isn’t going to happen again.
The election is Kerry’s to lose, IMHO. Bush’s record speaks for itself–all Kerry and the democrats must do is make sure people see Bush’s record for what it is, instead of what Bush pretends it is. Unless there is some sort of miracle (orchestrated or otherwise), there’s a damn good chance that Bush will go down in flames, which is what that arrogant prick richly deserves.
Democrats have a lot to hope for. They shouldn’t let themselves get sidetracked by this Sideshow Nader.
While I think there isn’t much point to him running in '04, I can’t really fault the guy for continuing to fight the good fight. Dammit, I know the system is busted and third parties don’t have a prayer, but that doesn’t mean we should bar them from even trying. If nothing else, their messages get out, and the big boys have no choice but to deal with them.
I continue to be flabbergasted by the CONTINUED assertionst that Nader singlehandedly cost Gore the election (notwithstanding the issue of whether he legitmately lost, but that’s an issue that’s never going to be resolved here). Did everyone forget the butterfly ballots, the minority groups illegally turned away from the polls, all the absentee ballots that got lost or not counted, and, oh yeah, Gore’s complete inability to look more viable than a guy who couldn’t form three sentences without stumbling? This “it’s all Nader’s fault” garbage is beneath contempt. I can’t believe it could be brought up on SDMB, of all places.
Anyway, if Kerry is even marginally deserving of the Democratic nomination, he will destroy both Nader and Bush in November. From what I see, it shouldn’t be that hard.