I hereby pit Ralph the Nader for his grotesquelyt inflated sense of self-importance, his disdain for the opinions of the citizens of this country (even his own former supporters have asked him not to run), for his presumptuous notions of what the country needs, and for his bloated egomania.
At this point, only a moron would say that there is no difference separating Democrats and Republicans.
Nader is just such a moron.
Luckily, I feel it is likely that Nader will get so little votes and so little support this election that he couldn’t possibly make any difference in the outcome.
I’ll go further than that and predict that when close to the election it is clear that he has vitually zero support, he’ll drop out in with much annoying and paranoid whinging.
He’s gonna run every four years. Think Harold Stassen. I suspect that this time around (and in every future attempt), he won’t garner enough support to make any difference.
In 2000, the threat of a Bush administration didn’t seem too awful. After all, a replay of Bush I wouldn’t have been a disaster. Now that we’ve seen how bad “bad” can be, however, only the very seriously confused will cast their votes for Nader.
I move that we start spelling it “Nadir,” by the way.
Your concluding prediction is at odds with your opening thesis. If Nader is as megalomaniacal as you believe, nothing will cause him to drop out of the race.
I took the opportunity to speculate the Ralph Nader is a secret al Qaeda agent. Back in 2000, it was their intent to take take over the US administration. However their intelligence was not very good and when they found out as a result of the election that there was little support left for Ralph, they put him back to sleep.
However, now that Bush has sent America’s armed forces to Iraq, al Qaeda has learned that it is much easier to fight Americans there than in New York and Washington, particularly now that there travel budget is restricted. After all, day after day they are killing Americans and keeping the morale high.
Ralph no doubt has reported back that he can ensure a Bush victory by spoiling the Democrat vote once again, so that al Qaeda can have 4 more years of killing Americans. Otherwise, the pary might be over.
Nader is a fucking egomaniacal swine. He is truly Satans little helper.
All you need to know about the 2,000 election is that without Nader, Bush wouldn’t be president. OK, it’s unfair to tar Nader with that in hindsight. Now, however, it’s completely justified. He knows he can’t win and he knows he will siphon votes off the democratic candidate.
What does this mean? Well, sad as it is, it seems that there are members of the “progressive” wing that would rather see a radical right-wing republican retain office --with all the death, destruction, raping and looting of this country and others that entails-- than compromise their sterling agenda in order to see a moderate Democrat take office.
What can you say about these sorts of fifth columnists aside from they’re being their own worst enemy?
You can say that, aside from conservative ditto apes, those people are our worst enemy too.
Not necessarily. Note that the OPs predicition is predicated on Nader polling very poorly (or a lot worse than last time). It could argued that an overly self-centered pol like Nader would rather get out and avoid the embarrassement of being shown to be irrelevant.
Having said that, I think don’t think Nader will quit.
Really, though, now there’s NO excuse to vote for him. So many people in 2000 were voting for him in hopes of making the threshold to get the Greens funded in federal elections, but he’s running as an Indie this time around.
I just love the quote that CNN is running on the front page right now.
Right. If you want to “retire our supremely selected president”, why are you running? If you hadn’t run the last time you wouldn’t have to worry about getting rid of him now. What makes you think that running now will help your alleged cause, Ralph?
He must secretly want Bush to win, because if he sipons votes off the Democratic nominee again that’s what’ll happen.
I agree that he’s a pain in the *ss. When you balance the chances of him winning versus the chances that he will screw up the democratic candidate’s chances, he’s really being a jerk.
It seems to me that if he wanted to make a statement, he should have run for the democratic nomination.
I’m surprised no one has brought up the Clinton conspiracy theory yet…
In the end, I cannot bring myself to condemn 3rd party candidates. To do so is to accept that the Pubs and the Dems have some sort of inherent right to have the system all to themselves. Talk of “stealing votes” makes my skin crawl.
Note to Dems: Learn to live with it. If you cannot accomodate the Nader voters, you do not deserve their vote. It’s as simple as that.
How does what work? Sorry, I don’t understand the question. Or at least the only way I can understand it would only have me repeat the exact same wording as my original post for the answer. I’m assuming that wouldn’t help.
I didn’t vote for Nader last time, and I’m not going to vote for him this year, either, but if he wants to run, more power to him. Let’s put the blame where it belongs. It’s not his fault Bush is in the White House: it’s Al Gore’s. That wooden-faced automaton ran such a shit campaign, he couldn’t even carry his home state. Pathetic. Like John Mace said, if Nader’s candidacy was such a threat to the Democratic ticket, then they should have run further to the left. That they did not is hardly Nader’s fault.
The thing is, Miller, that if they run more to the left they lose the center. Nader is picking votes off the fringe, and what the Democrats lose off that fringe can’t be overcome by the moderate votes that they win.
Precisely. I have a hard time understanding why Nader is a raving egomaniac but Kerry or Bush isn’t. They all want to be President, and two out of the three aren’t going to get it.
The funniest thing is that the Dems are about to nominate yet another wooden-faced automaton with about the same facility of changing any particular position in an effort to get elected as the last one. You’d think they’d learn that this whole “electable” thing is going to sink them.
Nader’s constituency is as unlikely to vote for Kerry as it was to vote for Gore, since both of those candidates have the precise same taint of taking whatever money they can in order to get elected, and being willing to sell out any Dem constituency in order to triangulate to the middle.
Well, I guess I did understand your question, then, because that what I thought you meant. I’ll try to rephrase without repeating myself.
If someone says Nader (or any 3rd party candidate) shouldn’t run, it implies that Dems and Pubs have some preferential status in running, no? It’s up to the people to decide for whom they want to vote, not to the naysayers to decide who should run.
