I won’t stay home. I’ll vote for someone who supports my views more than Obama has turned out to. Should no such person arise, I’ll vote for Obama again, grudgingly.
Sorry, yes, I “spoke” (typed) sloppily. I meant that I’d heard and seen a lot of people who’d supported Obama in 2008 were so disillusioned that they would stay home, not that everybody who’d supported Obama in 2008 was staying home.
And as for the rest, I actually agree with you. But at the same time, the idea that any one of the Republican candidates could possibly end up in the Oval Office is so frightening to me that I just can’t take that chance.
Even if someone that more aligns with my beliefs should be a third-party nominee, I am probably going to still vote for Obama for the above reason.
I hear what you’re saying but I think it’s more grumbling than reality. As disappointed as many on the left are with Obama (raises hand), I think the thought of letting the crazy right, or those willing to pander to them, get in the White House will motivate most of the luke-warm liberals to go out and vote in November.
I wish more people would think logically about third-party candidates. Yeah, Nader is better on the issues than anyone else on the field. But you know what? A vote for him in 2000 is a vote that didn’t go to Gore but instead, for all intents and purposes, went straight into the garbage can. I honestly hope we get a radical right-wing third-party ticket, because that would be AMAZING.
If those of us who prefer a leftist President are a sufficient voting bloc to cost a Democrat election to the Presidency, I can think of a solution for that candidate.
I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. 
I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, and given the circumstances, and in hindsight, would absolutely do so again. I’ve never seen somebody run as hard from his Vice-Presidency as Gore did. Well, maybe Humphrey.
I think this election is the first time in a long time there is even a remote chance of this happening. Particularly if Romney moves toward the center once he locks up the nomination. And, to have any chance of winning in November whoever the Republican nominee is will have to do that anyway, Romney or not.
Well that’s a different way of defining Santorum, sure.
Because you’d prefer Bush to Gore? :rolleyes:
The problem is not that you voted for Nader. The problem is that most people who voted for Nader would, had he not been around, voted for Gore rather than Bush. IIRC, Nader got around 5% of the popular vote. That would’ve turned a close election into a mandate landslide. The progressive/liberal vote ended up getting split between those two candidates, rather than unified around one candidate. It’s like what happened in Maine in '08: there were two liberal candidates who split a majority of the voting population, and one conservative asshole who got in because neither of them on their own was able to stand up to his singular voice of right-wing idiocy.
Too bad.
If Al Gore wanted me to vote for him, he had plenty of opportunity to make that clear. He did not.
I think you’re missing the point. Again, you would prefer Bush to Gore?
No, at the time and as it turned out. Again, so what? I made it clear that even given hindsight, I would again vote for Nader.
If Democrats want me to vote for them, they’d better give me a good reason.
Self-interest.
Look, I know that Nader is better on the issues than Gore was. I also know (and knew back then) that he didn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell and that voting for him was essentially throwing a vote away. It was, for all intents and purposes, the choice between two “evils”. By voting for nader, and therefore throwing away one progressive/liberal vote, you were not supporting the lesser of two evils, unless you honestly think that Bush was better than Gore.
Getting Gore rather than Bush is a good reason. If you want a third party to get elected, then spend your time trying to get the voting system changed to IRV or something else that would make it possible.
But present company excepted, I think most (though clearly not all) of the noise about “I voted Obama before, but I’m not going to vote for him again” is coming from right-wingers trying to influence lefties away from the ballot box. It’s like PUMA all over again.
I would hope so. The next President will have the opportunity to appoint at least one, if not two, Supreme Court Justices, which will allow the occupant of the Oval Office the opportunity to influence public policy for decades to come. I would like that person to be someone who at least recognizes my right to exist.
I’d put Romney’s odds at 55-45. If the economy goes into slow growth mode or recession, Romney will probably win. If it ignites, Obama will probably win. At 2.5% the odds are about 55-45 in Romney’s favor. Cite. (I boost Obama’s approval rating to 46%, consistent with the latest trends). I might say intangibles favor Obama, but that would only lower the odds to 50-50 in my view (I get this figure by boosting his approval rating by 2 points.)
“At least one, if not two…” Does that mean one, or two, or some other number? 
Your logic is poor.
The number of people who voted for Nader was a lot smaller than the number of people who were eligible but did not vote at all. You might also consider the number of people who voted for the Republican candidate. Turning on people who voted for Nader because they didn’t toe the party line is just weird. It’s not their fault; they were part of the problem, but only a small part. It’s just easier to blame them because voter apathy is harder to put a face to.
So, how many people in Florida voted Nader?