# Serious considerations for Nader supporters **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 19, 2000, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577 "2000-10-19T20:41:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/1 "2000-10-19T20:41:10Z")
[Here’s](http://www.thestranger.com/2000-10-19/savage.html) the best rebuttal I’ve seen to the Nader supporters’ claim that they’re not “throwing their vote away.” Please read this with an open mind and share your reactions. ---
**Author:** ![SterlingNorth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@SterlingNorth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SterlingNorth)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/2 "2000-10-19T21:00:30Z")
Interesting article, but what if I’m a liberal in Texas? Al Gore is about as viable a candidate in Texas as Nader. Can I vote for Nader then? The only way all of Texas electoral votes won’t go to Bush is if he declares that as President, all the world’s toxic waste will have a home in Texas. And even then, it will still be close. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/3 "2000-10-19T21:00:38Z")
I do not agree with his answer to the second letter. A good showing by Nader would push the Democrats to the left. After Perot did so well you saw both parties trying to co-opt his issues such as deficit reduction and term limits. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/4 "2000-10-19T21:01:31Z")
Interesting _cite_ lissener 😃 BTW, I thought he was through with politics after that failed attempt at biological warfare. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/5 "2000-10-19T21:19:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by puddleglum \* > \*\*I do not agree with his answer to the second letter. A good showing by Nader would push the Democrats to the left. After Perot did so well you saw both parties trying to co-opt his issues such as deficit reduction and term limits. \*\* Yes, but after Reagan beat Carter and Anderson, the Democrats began a move to the right that’s left them currently a hair’s breadth away from Republicanism. I think he has a point: at least if I were looking at the results, I’d definitely assume the 49% was closer to what the public really wanted. Look at it this way: if the Dems react by moving left, they’ll lose the pseudo-Democrats/quasi-Republicans of the South and Silicon Valley, who will stay where they are as the Democrats pull away from them to the left. If Gore were more liberal, in other words, Bush would be leading by a great deal more. The argument that Nader will inspire future Democrats to be more liberal is hollow and doesn’t stand up to examination. I really do buy Savage’s logic that it will ultimately have the opposite effect. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/6 "2000-10-19T21:27:56Z")
Oh come off it lissener. That’s anything but a good rebuttal to Nader supporters. I still love Zen101’s comment. "I don’t like Bush any more than Algore but at least his followers don’t act like fucking panhandlers. " So stop begging. We aren’t going to change our minds. You want a point by point rebuttal? > [@](#): > > Ralph Nader is not “in this race,” and no celebrity endorsement or kick-ass position on drug legalization is going to put him in. While it may not be much fun having to choose between the lesser of two evils, that’s the choice adult voters are faced with this year. To which I reply, it’ll end up with Democrats like lissener down in hell supporting Lucifer because Satan would be even worse. Tell me lissener if the race was between Dick Cheney and George Bush, would you vote for Cheney because Bush would be worse? If so, I must say that I’m shocked at your lack of convictions. > [@](#): > > Ralph Nader is a vanity candidate running a vanity campaign for a Potemkin party, the Greens. And while Al Gore may not be perfect, he’s better than Bush. Bullshit. Gore is **the** most self-serving politician in DC. His stand on the issues is completely up to what the polls say. Plus he’s a liar. > [@](#): > > If Nader voters manage to put Bush in the White House next year, some of your fellow citizens (women, queers, the poor) are going to pay a high price for your refusal to grow up and make the real choice you’re faced with–which, again, is a choice between Bush and Gore. Kinda like the price they’ve been paying under four years of Clinton? Clinton has pushed through more right wing proposals than Bush was able to. Why? Because people are complacent and he can get away with it. At least if Bush were elected there would be more activism. > [@](#): > > Yes, yes, I know: Ralph is better on the issues. So’s my mom. Actually, on some issues, my mom is better than Ralph. But my mom isn’t a serious candidate for president, and neither is Ralph “Vanity Candidate” Nader. The difference is, dumbfuck, you’re mom isn’t on the ballot. If she was, and she was running with a party I supported, I would vote for her. > [@](#): > > Bush got 49 percent, Gore got 46 percent, and Nader hit the five-percent jackpot (not gonna happen). > Do you really believe the Democrats are going to smack their foreheads and say, “Oh, my God, let’s move to the left and snap up that five percent!” Yep. That’s what they did in the 60’s. Coopted the movements. Also, he’s making the assumption that Nader supporters wouldvote for Gore if Nader weren’t on the ballot. An assumption that has never been backed up with facts. > [@](#): > > Don’t be an idiot. The Dems will look at the numbers and say, “Let’s move to the right and try to peel some of that 49 percent off Bush.” If Gore loses the election by less than the percentage Ralph picks up, we’ll all be watching the Dems run right, not left. Which shows why you shouldn’t vote for them. They simply follow the votes. If they move more to the right, then Nader will get even more votes next time, the greens will have an actuall chance of getting elected. > [@](#): > > If Ralph Nader hits five percent of the vote (which isn’t gonna happen), the Greens will indeed get federal matching funds the next time out. Nader supporters would have us believe that these funds will somehow magically transform the Greens into a viable third party. No, but it will enable them to get more state canidates, more federal canidates, and more local canidates elected. It’s a slow process. > [@](#): > > But if federal matching funds have that power, how come the Reform Party, which got millions in federal dollars in the last two presidential elections, isn’t a viable third party? Because the reform party was a vanity project of a looney. Unlike the greens it didn’t have real graasroots support, doesn’t have any kind of coherent platform, it was simply “I’m sick of the others, I’ll vote for Perot” > [@](#): > > As for federal matching funds putting a third party “on equal footing” with the D’s and the R’s, tell me, did that money get Pat Buchanan in the debates this year? There is a world of difference between Pat Buchanan and the Green party. > [@](#): > > Let’s talk about Jesse Ventura. Ventura made a long-shot bid for governor of Minnesota as a Reform Party candidate, and won. According to the logic of Nader supporters, Ventura’s victory should have transformed the Reform Party into a viable third party, at least in Minnesota. But the Reform Party in Minnesota imploded, just like the Reform Party did everywhere else, and Jesse Ventura isn’t a member anymore. He left the Reform party before it imploded, didn’t have an actual commitment to it, and see my arguments above. > [@](#): > > While Ventura’s victory demonstrated that voters will elect people who aren’t D’s and R’s, it also proved that electing one person to a big job will not turn a bunch of kooks and losers into a viable third party. And I should also point out that Nader the moaning prig is a far cry from Ventura the upbeat populist. kooks and losers. Excellent. yep. describes the greens perfectly. oooh oooh how about calling them closet commies too. Red baiting’s still popular (as Carol Midgen proved recently) > [@](#): > > This is a close race, and no one on either the left or the right has the luxury of tossing away their vote on a vanity candidate. Hey, lefties, why do you think Buchanan isn’t getting any traction on the right? Because hard-right wackos can tell the difference between Bush and Gore, and they would rather see Bush in the White House. That’s again, a stupid argument. Perot got most of his support from the Republicans, they had no qualms about supporting him and allowing Bush to lose. They don’t suppport Pat, because, frankly, he’s Pat. > [@](#): > > Putting Bush in the White House not only won’t create a viable third party, but will have devastating consequences for women, gays and lesbians, the environment, the Supreme Court, and the poor–hey, that’s everyone and everything Nader voters claim to give a shit about! So will putting Gore in the White House. So did putting Clinton in the White House. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/7 "2000-10-19T21:46:23Z")
Now oldscratch, just a few things: > [@](#): > > To which I reply, it’ll end up with Democrats like lissener down in hell supporting Lucifer because Satan would be even worse. Tell me lissener if the race was between Dick Cheney and George Bush, would you vote for Cheney because Bush would be worse? If so, I must say that I’m shocked at your lack of convictions We’ve had this argument before, and if you’ve watched the debates there is a clear difference between one party and the other, despite what Ralph says. > [@](#): > > Kinda like the price they’ve been paying under four years of Clinton? Clinton has pushed through more right wing proposals than Bush was able to. Why? Because people are complacent and he can get away with it. At least if Bush were elected there would be more activism. This did not happen in a vacuum. Clinton went right because the voters shifted right. Remember the Republican congress and “Contract with America”. > [@](#): > > Yep. That’s what they did in the 60’s. Coopted the movements. Also, he’s making the assumption that Nader supporters wouldvote for Gore if Nader weren’t on the ballot. An assumption that has never been backed up with facts. Well please allow me. The Green platform is pretty much a populist platform (well until you get to that socialist economic platform anyway). > [@](#): > > Because the reform party was a vanity project of a looney. Unlike the greens it didn’t have real graasroots support, doesn’t have any kind of coherent platform, it was simply “I’m sick of the others, I’ll vote for Perot” Coulda fooled me. I was a Ralph supporter till I got involved with the Greens of Alameda Party (I made calls and sent letter on they’re behalf), and learned more about the green platform. If that’s grass roots, you guys are in serious trouble. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/8 "2000-10-19T22:12:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stuffinb \* > \*\*Now oldscratch, just a few things: > > We’ve had this argument before, and if you’ve watched the debates there is a clear difference between one party and the other, despite what Ralph says. \*\* I have, and haven’t seen any. Increase millitary spending by a lot or a little, even though the pentagon doesn’t need it. Want’s to ban abortions but claims he won’t vs wants to and will ban late term abortions. Oppose gay marriages vs oppose gay marriage. Wants the federal governemtn to censor what we see vs wants parents to make the choice (ok, there Bush is definetely more liberal, I’ll give you that.) Talks about the need for religion vs talks about the need for religion. Supports killing children and mentally retarded people vs supports killing children and mentally retarded people. Supports tin-pot dictators vs supports tin-pot dictators. Supports nafta vs supports nafta. Holds real people in contempt vs holds real people in contempt. Under the thumb of big business vs under the thumb of big business. Nope, didn’t see any major differences. > [@](#): > > \*\* > This did not happen in a vacuum. Clinton went right because the voters shifted right. Remember the Republican congress and “Contract with America”. \*\* Well, we could argue for a while on this one. I would argue that the average voter didn’t shift to the right, the left wing ones simply got disalousined, and the middle-wing ones were simply fed up with clinton. Plus if you look at how the Republicans won the majority it was by a very small margin. It simply gave Clinton the excuse he needed to shift right, he’d wanted to do so for years. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Well please allow me. The Green platform is pretty much a populist platform (well until you get to that socialist economic platform anyway). \*\* Still no facts. I’ve seen people who would support Bush support Nader, people who wouldn’t vote support Nader, and some who suppport Gore support Nader. I haven’t seen any studies or statistics on what would happen to those votes if he wasn’t on the ballot. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Coulda fooled me. I was a Ralph supporter till I got involved with the Greens of Alameda Party (I made calls and sent letter on they’re behalf), and learned more about the green platform. If that’s grass roots, you guys are in serious trouble.\*\* not sure I’m following you here. Could you elaborate? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/9 "2000-10-19T22:20:56Z")
> [@](#): > > there is a clear difference between one party and the other Sure. For example, the Democrats are in favor of increased government spending for Medicare, including a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens. The Republicans, on the other hand, are opposed to continued government spending on social programs and want to the the government out of people’s lives. . . .what’s that? You say that Bush _supports_ a prescription drug benefit for Medicare? Oh. Here’s my point, **stuffinb** (and **'scratch** ’s as well, I think). There may be some differences between the parties at the moment. But those differences are largely A) cosmetic and B) subject to change over just a few years. ---
**Author:** ![Rasa](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rasa/32/3578_2.png) [@Rasa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rasa)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/10 "2000-10-19T22:21:16Z")
Oh my. What an _insightful_ article. I **knew** I should know better than to think for myself. Guess it’s time for me to grow up and stop being a pinko kook loonie, swallow my principles and vote for Gore so I don’t _gasp!_ throw away my vote! :rolleyes: Puh-leeze. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/11 "2000-10-19T22:23:07Z")
You know, oldscratch, it comes down to this: You’re “theory” that the electorate is just itching for an excuse to shift left is the most utterly insane naivete I can think of. Savage is right; you’re being childish. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/12 "2000-10-19T22:25:29Z")
Wow. What a response lissener. childish. You’re right, damnit. I never realised. I’m going out and damn it. I’m going to vote for Gore tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Rasa](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rasa/32/3578_2.png) [@Rasa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rasa)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/13 "2000-10-19T22:26:31Z")
must… resist… urge… to correct grammar… Nope, I lost. YOUR. YOUR. Unless oldscratch is a theory, it’s “your”, damnit! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f8ce5/32.png) [@The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Peyote_Coyote)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/14 "2000-10-19T22:28:18Z")
IMO, lissener, any time you vote for a candidate because you like said candidate’s ideas and policies you ARE NOT throwing your vote away. You are voting for something rather than trying to pick the lesser of two evils. Principle above expediency. I am voting for Harry Browne this election. I know he will not win, but I would rather vote for a party the majority of whose policies I like than vote for the Gorebot or the Shrub. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/15 "2000-10-19T22:30:27Z")
Amen, **Peyote**. ---
**Author:** ![Rasa](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rasa/32/3578_2.png) [@Rasa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rasa)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/16 "2000-10-19T22:32:48Z")
Only thing I’d add to that, Peyote, is principle before resignation. As in: I’m not going to resign myself to voting for someone I don’t support. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f8ce5/32.png) [@The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Peyote_Coyote)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/17 "2000-10-19T22:35:04Z")
I agree with you, Rasa. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/18 "2000-10-19T22:37:57Z")
I posted it before, but damnit it’s always a good quote. Eugene Debs -“I’d rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don’t want and get it.” ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/19 "2000-10-19T22:38:38Z")
Look, I know I don’t have a lot of room to talk because it’s usually me who lowers a debate’s tone flamewards, but oldscratch you dived into this both stinky feet first and turned it into an unpleasant, defensive argument, when the tone of my OP was meant (naively, I guess) to engender a real discussion and exchange of ideas. Obviously I’m on your side politically, otherwise I’d be campaigning for Nader as the surest way to squeak Dubya into the Whitehouse. I meant for this debate to be about the consequences of voting for Nader–the math, not the politics–and you’ve turned into just another “Republicrats” thread. So excuse me if I resorted to name calling, but you really pissed me off by highjacking the tone of this discussion. You might want to examine the vehemence of your defensiveness; you sound a bit like a homophobe with a muscle magazine under your mattress. [list]And Rasa, you know what? Why don’t you read through a few of my posts? I almost never make _any_ kind of grammatical mistake in my writing in these boards–I’m a fucking copy editor, for god’s sake. If you’ve read any of my posts you’d know that I know the difference between you’re and your. I always get its and it’s right, too (and to and too), and imply and infer even. If I typed a bit fast, backed up and typed again, without previewing, then I’m sorry I ruined your day. ---
**Author:** ![Rasa](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rasa/32/3578_2.png) [@Rasa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rasa)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2000, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577/20 "2000-10-19T22:39:31Z")
Yeah… what Debs said. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-considerations-for-nader-supporters/37577.md?page=2)