# Is Nader going to screw up another election? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 20, 2004, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275 "2004-02-20T22:02:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/141 "2004-02-25T20:17:14Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > The Democratic nominee moving leftward toward Nader means losing how many votes from the center? **erislover** mentioned this, but nobody else has addressed it. Oh, I’ve heard it, but I’m not convinced in the least. In 2000, Gore ran an utterly lackluster campaign, with his main program being, “c’mon, Clinton was pretty good, right? And I’m not particularly liberal either.” That’s hardly an inspiring message. To a large degree, politicians who want to be elected have to stand **for** something: they have to be able to lay out a vision that convinces people they’ll be a good leader. A lot of undecided voters are undecided because they don’t have a particularly coherent vision of their own, and are willing to be persuaded. Those voters aren’t gonna go for a lackluster candidate. They’re not going to rate candidates on a 0-100 scale, with 0 being Nader and 100 being David Duke, and choose the candidate with the number closest to their own. They’re going to vote for the candidate that energizes them, that shows them what their country could be. Nader lit a fire under the feet of Democrats, reminded them why they’d chosen the party in the first place. I’m seeing a lot more vision, a lot more progressive thought, in this crop of candidates. And I think that’s translating to the huge turnout at primaries, and I think it’ll translate to huge turnouts in the presidential election. Democrats can only benefit from having a clear vision. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/142 "2004-02-25T20:20:31Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > I don’t know about your world, but there are 1459 days between presidential elections in mine. I’m asking you to pick that one day and be a little realistic. The other 1459 days, live your principles to the fullest, be as idealistic as you want. One man’s ‘realism’ is another man’s hypocrisy, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/143 "2004-02-25T20:27:56Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I agreed with you in 2000, but you’ve gotta have some carrot along with your stick. The Dems HAVE moved leftward since Gore, and Kerry and Edwards are both presenting a face of strong opposition to Bush this year. You’re kidding me, right? Read this [url=“[http://www.ppionline.org/ppi\_ci.cfm?contentid=252144&subsecid=900020&knlgAreaID=450004](http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252144&subsecid=900020&knlgAreaID=450004)”]document thoroughly and please point out the major differences between this and the Republicans’ foreign policy. The Progressive Policy Institute is a branch of the Democratic Leadership Council, to which Kerry belongs. I do not think it a stretch, especially since Kerry repeatedly talks about “progressive internationalism”, to say that this is the foreign policy Kerry would adopt as President. And it’s not very leftward-moving. ---
**Author:** ![Chicago\_Faucet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chicago_faucet/32/13910_2.png) [@Chicago\_Faucet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chicago_Faucet)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/144 "2004-02-25T20:48:03Z")
> [@Eva Luna](#): > > That quote of Nader’s makes me fear for the safety of the democratic process in the snowball’s chance in Hell that he would be elected. What, anyone who criticizes him is censoring him? No matter how much I may agree with some of his stands on actual issues, that’s just schmucky. Nader did not say that someone was criticizing him, he said that people were telling him not to run. That _is_ censorship. That _is_ the democratic process ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/145 "2004-02-25T20:56:43Z")
Been following this thread for a while and its facinating the posts I’ve seen. Myself, I can’t stand Nader, but I think he has every right to run…and that folks who agree with his positions are by far superior citizens for voting for the man than folks compromising their positions and voting for someone who they don’t agree with simply for ‘strategy’. I actually tend to agree with the folks saying vote for the candidate, reguardless of party, who you like best…not simply the lesser of two evils. I know a LOT of folks are voting this time simply to beat Bush, the great champion of evil, blah blah blah, and are trying desparately to convince themselves that Kerry is the man they really want. MANY of my friends are doing this, and they are unhappy about it because really Kerry DOESN’T represent their positions or stances…he’s simply the guy running against Bush. If it was Edwards or Dean, or Mickey Mouse, they would still vote for them because they were against Bush. I’ve been in several late night skull sessions discussing this very topic and have argued that they should, maybe this once, look to the third parties and see if any of them come closer to their positions. I really wish, in general, that this was the attitude in America…well, and while I’m wishing, I REALLY fucking wish people would take their franchise seriously and actually get off their fat asses and vote! For myself, the more I look at Kerry the less I like. I was prepared to really like the guy and wanted to vote for him…same with Edwards. But as I dug deeper I found more and more that I flat out either disagreed with or simply didn’t like about the man. I won’t vote for Bush for much the same reason. On most counts he simply doesn’t represent my positions nor is he furthering it in any meaningful way IMO. So…I don’t like Bush. I don’t like or agree with Kerry. Where does that leave me? Thats what the third parties are all about IMO, and its ‘strategies’ like have been espoused in this thread that undercut them and marginalize them IMO. Ya, in reality voting for Nader this time around is throwing your vote away (just like voting for who ever the Liberatarians put up is throwing mine away)…because people are oriented towards the lesser of two evils system we currently have, and voting ‘strategically’. Most folks voting Bush this time (those not voting knee jerk Republican at least) are doing so because they see him as the lesser of two evils between him an Kerry, even if they don’t agree with him substantially. I think the same can be said of most folks voting for Kerry who aren’t knee jerk Democrat voters as well…they are voting for Kerry solely because they don’t want Bush. I think thats SUCH a stupid reason for electing either man…because he’s the lesser of two evils. This won’t go over big to the died in the wool Bush haters who only see getting rid of him at all costs as their goal, and I suppose that as long as the majority of my fellow sheep feel the same way, we’ll have our locked in two party system and third parties will always be spoilers and marginalized…at best. Same really. -XT ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/146 "2004-02-25T21:01:40Z")
> [@horhay\_achoa](#): > > Thats not really what he said though, right? He said he is against it, but he wouldn’t support an amendment. So he’s _personally_ against it, but he feels it’s not his place (if elected President) to _force_ others to comply with his own views – but, instead, it should be left to the states, to accept or reject as they see fit. That’s weasling? So if I say that I’m personally against religion, but figure what everyone wants to believe is their own business, am I being a “weasel” as well? ---
**Author:** ![Stonebow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Stonebow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stonebow)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/147 "2004-02-25T21:45:28Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Been following this thread for a while and its facinating the posts I’ve seen. Myself, I can’t stand Nader, but I think he has every right to run…and that folks who agree with his positions are by far superior citizens for voting for the man than folks compromising their positions and voting for someone who they don’t agree with simply for ‘strategy’. > -XT ‘Superior Citizens?’ I guess that I just don’t see that. Nader is probably closer to my political positions than Kerry is, but I am also reasonable enough to know that my personal politics are to the left of most Americans. I don’t try to fool myself into thinking that if everyone ‘gave it some thought,’ they’d agree with me. So I vote for the guy that is slightly left of center over the guy that is (in my opinion) a lot to the right of center, because in the long run, it’s in my best inter tests to do so. I believe that it’s been explained why exactly our system functions best in a 2-party scenario. Third parties are spoilers, and usually hurt the interests of those closest aligned with them by throwing the election to the other party. If you want to move to change the system, that’s a separate debate, but as it stands, it seems at best naive, and at worst irresponsible, to vote a 3rd party spoiler. A superior citizen, in my opinion, is someone that gives thought to his/her actions impact society at large rather than throwing a vote away. It seems quite selfish to me to place a vanity vote while there are real issues hanging in the balance. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/148 "2004-02-25T21:50:51Z")
> [@Chicago Faucet](#): > > Nader did not say that someone was criticizing him, he said that people were telling him not to run. That _is_ censorship. No, it’s not. It’s freedom of discussion. No one is using their power to PREVENT him from running. They’re just telling him he shouldn’t. To equate that with censorship is silly. I could tell you that you should dye your hair blue. That doesn’t mean I’m violating your rights doing it. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2004, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/149 "2004-02-26T00:21:47Z")
There’s been some discussion here about how the political center in this country has moved to the right. Some people think that the solution to this is to try to force the Democrats to move further to the left. **This won’t work.** The center is, almost by definition, where most of the votes are. So moving away from it is counterproductive and will actually shift the center in the other direction. If the Democrats shifted further to the left, they would be moving away from the current center and they would lose votes and the Republicans would gain votes. So the center would move farther to the _right_. IMHO the only way to shift the center to the left is to shift the _Republicans_ to the left! (Okay, at least to the left of where they currently are.) So, am I completely out of my mind or does that make sense? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2004, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/150 "2004-02-26T00:52:43Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > So he’s _personally_ against it, but he feels it’s not his place (if elected President) to _force_ others to comply with his own views – but, instead, it should be left to the states, to accept or reject as they see fit. > > That’s weasling? So if I say that I’m personally against religion, but figure what everyone wants to believe is their own business, am I being a “weasel” as well? Kerry is weasling because he’s, in effect, no different than Bush now except he says he’s not for the amendment. It looks, at this stage, as if the amendment is impossible to pass. But the “leave it to the states” stance is a rather moot point now, as MA has legalized same-sex marriage. We will very shortly have legally married gays and lesbians filing joint state and federal income tax forms. So, what Bush is saying is “I think this is wrong. I prefered to leave the matter of civil unions up to the states, but activist judges have forced my hand. We need an amendment.” The US Constituion has always been interpreted in such a way as to make a marriage license in one state good in any other. Some states have outright bans on gay marriage. But as the US Constitution trumps state constitutions on various matters, I’m assuming that it does in this case as well. Whether, say, Ohio wants it or not, it’s soon going to have married gay citizens. This is going to create a big legal mess. Saying “oh, leave it to the States” at this point is kind of absurd. We’re already past the point where that’s a practical stance. It’s no longer a “state issue”. It’s now a national issue. At least Bush acknowledges that and has taken a position. Kerry has said nothing of substance on the subject. Presently, being against the amendment is tacit support of gay marriage, whether he wants it to be or not. If the Constitution isn’t amended, either the Supreme Court strikes down MA gay marriages or something, or it’s a fait accompli. Kerry’s evasion belies a kind of convenient cluelessness, if you ask me. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2004, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/151 "2004-02-26T01:12:44Z")
The Green Party (by which I mean the Green Party of the United States([http://www.gp.org/](http://www.gp.org/)), on which ticket Nader ran in 2000 – not the smaller and even more leftist Greens/Green Party USA ([http://www.greenparty.org/](http://www.greenparty.org/))) is actually rather divided about Nader’s candidacy. Nader decided to run as an independent, he says, because he wanted to get into the race right away and the Green Party will not be having its nominating convention until June (in Milwaukee, WI). The Greens published a press release, available at [http://www.gp.org/press/pr\_02\_22\_04.html](http://www.gp.org/press/pr_02_22_04.html). Excerpt: > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON, D.C. – Greens welcomed Ralph Nader’s entry into the presidential race today [2/24/04] as an independent, saying that Mr. Nader will take positions and raise issues of vital urgency in the 2004 race for the White House. > > Greens noted that the Green Party of the United States and its 43 affiliate state parties are preparing to back a Green nominee, not an independent or another party’s candidate. > > “In running a presidential ticket this year, we’re keeping our eyes on the prize. Our mid-term goal is the creation of a multi-party political system, and the participation of a strong Green Party in that system,” said Ben Manski, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States. “To move closer to achieving our goal, we run and support Green candidates.” > > The following candidates have confirmed their participation in the Green primaries with the national party: Sheila Bilyeau, Peter Camejo, David Cobb, Paul Glover, Kent Mesplay, Carol Miller, Lorna Salzman. More information about their campaigns, with links to their web sites, is posted at [http://www.gp.org/convention/process.html](http://www.gp.org/convention/process.html). > > * * * > > **Some Greens have launched a ‘Redraft Nader’ campaign to persuade Mr. Nader to to reverse his earlier decision to not seek the Green Party nomination and instead accept a nomination at the party’s national convention in Milwaukee. There is also a campaign among some Green Party members to urge the party not to run a national candidate in 2004.** As I say, they’re divided. But they’re not going away. So, the way it’s going: Nader and a Green-to-be-named-later will both be running, but neither is assured of ballot status anywhere (except in states where the Greens have a really solid organization and have had ballot status for several election cycles past). There will be some states where both Nader and the Green will be on the ballot; some where only Nader is on the ballot; some where only the Green is on the ballot; and some where neither is on the ballot. My prediction is that the vote totals of Nader and the Green together will be less than Nader’s vote totals in 2000. But what I would really like to see happen is this: The vote totals of Nader and/or the Green are **more** than Ralph’s in 2000 – but the percentage of votes cast is **lower** than he got in 2000, because the voter turnout in 2004 is so much higher. As it will be, at least on the Democrat side. ---
**Author:** ![horhay\_achoa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@horhay\_achoa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/horhay_achoa)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2004, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/152 "2004-02-26T17:16:10Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > So he’s _personally_ against it, but he feels it’s not his place (if elected President) to _force_ others to comply with his own views – but, instead, it should be left to the states, to accept or reject as they see fit. > > That’s weasling? So if I say that I’m personally against religion, but figure what everyone wants to believe is their own business, am I being a “weasel” as well? Whatever. But as this applies to the discussion I think it gives some people a reason to vote for Nader. Look at it from a gay persons point of view…why would they want to vote for a president who is against gay marriage even if he is willing to leave it up to the states? Before everyone had equal rights, I wouldn’t expect a black person to vote for a candidate who said “I am against blacks voting, but I will leave it up to the states to decide”. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2004, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/153 "2004-02-26T17:20:57Z")
> [@horhay\_achoa](#): > > Whatever. But as this applies to the discussion I think it gives some people a reason to vote for Nader. Look at it from a gay persons point of view…why would they want to vote for a president who is against gay marriage even if he is willing to leave it up to the states? Because, if it isn’t a federal issue (and I really don’t see why it is), who cares what his opinion is? ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/154 "2004-02-26T17:42:56Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Because, if it isn’t a federal issue (and I really don’t see why it is), who cares what his opinion is? It becomes a federal issue when the President tries to pass an amendment to the Constitution about it. Several issues that should be left up to states have become federal issues. For instance, California made medical marijuana legal, but the Feds still say it’s illegal; as a result, folks who aren’t breaking California state law have been busted by the DEA. The gay marriage issue seems to be spinning out in a similar way, with the states’ decisions at odds with the federal philosophy, and people trying to take care of their own business caught in the middle. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2004, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/155 "2004-02-26T18:07:59Z")
Yes, President Bush can attempt to use his influence to make it a federal issue. I don’t see what that has to do with the fact that Kerry’s personal opinion is irrelevant if 1) he was president and 2) felt it wasn’t a federal issue, which was all I had to say on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2004, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/156 "2004-02-26T18:45:14Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Because, if it isn’t a federal issue (and I really don’t see why it is), who cares what his opinion is? Because his opinion, should he become President, will play a large part in determining how gay marriage is treated in the United States. Leaving it up to the individual states to decide is no way to go about it. Firstly, civil unions recognized in one state (like Vermont) are not going to be recognized in other states (like those that have passed actual legal bans). Secondly, as I understand it, civil unions do not grant the same rights to gay and lesbian couples as marriage does for heterosexual couples. For instance, a surviving partner in a gay civil union _cannot_ collect Social Security benefits from his/her deceased partner, even though both of them have been paying SocSec taxes for their entire careers. This is patently unfair and discriminatory, and “not supporting a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage” isn’t enough. Gay marriage is a federal issue because it is a civil rights issue, and should be treated accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![horhay\_achoa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@horhay\_achoa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/horhay_achoa)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2004, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/157 "2004-02-26T18:45:36Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Because, if it isn’t a federal issue (and I really don’t see why it is), who cares what his opinion is? Beyond the fact of sate vs. federal issue…lets actually call it a PERSONAL issue. Why would gay people want to vote for a candidate that is against them having something that they want? Even if it is a state issue, If I were gay, I wouldn’t feel comfortable voting for ANY candidate who’s personal view is that I shouldn’t have a certain right that everyone else has. Saying they are against it means they are discriminatory against gays. They will still be discriminatory weather or nor marriage is a state issue. Therefore, Nader might be a more appealing option. If black people weren’t allowed to get married they wouldn’t vote for someone in the KKK just because marriage is a “state issue”. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2004, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/158 "2004-02-26T18:55:43Z")
> [@horhay\_achoa](#): > > Beyond the fact of sate vs. federal issue…lets actually call it a PERSONAL issue. Why would gay people want to vote for a candidate that is against them having something that they want? Even if it is a state issue, If I were gay, I wouldn’t feel comfortable voting for ANY candidate who’s personal view is that I shouldn’t have a certain right that everyone else has. That’s as silly as saying an atheist wouldn’t want to work for a Christian fundamentalist, because the fundamentalist believes the atheist will burn in hellfire once he dies (or the Second Coming, or whatever). And I’m saying this as an atheist who has worked for Christian fundamentalists without any problems – as long as my boss keeps his _personal_ feelings about religion out of our _business_ relationship, it’s not a factor. Similarly, if Kerry keeps his personal feelings about gay marriage out of his “business” relationship with the electorate, it shouldn’t be a factor. The difference between Bush and Kerry is that Bush _is_ allowing his personal feelings to affect his “business” relationship, with the anti-gay-marriage amendment proposal. IMO, that crosses the line. ---
**Author:** ![horhay\_achoa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@horhay\_achoa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/horhay_achoa)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2004, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/159 "2004-02-26T21:17:26Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > And I’m saying this as an atheist who has worked for Christian fundamentalists without any problems – as long as my boss keeps his _personal_ feelings about religion out of our _business_ relationship, it’s not a factor. Similarly, if Kerry keeps his personal feelings about gay marriage out of his “business” relationship with the electorate, it shouldn’t be a factor. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that Kerry was a card carrying member of the KKK, but he promised not to let those “personal feelings” get in the way of his “business” if elected president. Do you think black people should feel comfortable enough with that to actually vote for him? I’m not saying that Kerry is a “gay basher” or anything. In fact, I would imagine that he really doesn’t care that much about gay marriage, but as a political move he feels he has to say he is against it. However, the fact remains, that he has publicly stated that he doesn’t feel gays should have the same rights as everyone else. Whether the states decide so or not, he doesn’t think its right. That is discriminatory. Some gay people might not be so concerned with the whole marriage issue and decide to vote for Kerry because of his stance on the economy or the war, and that’s fine. Some might vote for Bush for other reasons, and that’s fine too. However, other people might be very concerned with the gay marriage issue and have a desire to vote for Nader because, so far, he is the only one that is FOR IT. He represents a view point on the gay marriage issue that is not represented by any of the other candidates. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2004, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275/160 "2004-02-26T23:17:40Z")
Anybody who makes gay marriage the entire reason for their vote is a drooling idiot. I don’t know a lot of gay people, myself. The one’s I do know are pretty much normal, in a general and inclusive sense of the word. I very much doubt any of them would risk electing Bush just to spite Kerry for his luke-warm support. On the other hand, if the polls stood at 70% Kerry and 20% Bush one week before the election, I could see that they might make a “protest vote” for Nader if Dreadful Consequences were not in the offing. Under such a roseate scenario, I would support that decision, so that they might demonstrate thier “presence” and political clout. Assuming, as I said, no Dreadful Consequences. I would also expect a hefty portion of them to join us on the barricades if the Supreme Court awards GeeDubya the Presidency based on Divine Right. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nader-going-to-screw-up-another-election/230275.md?page=9)