Nader may run for Pres
 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ralph Nader will not seek the Green Party's nomination for president in 2004, but he's still considering a presidential candidacy as an independent, a Green Party official said Tuesday.


see link for full article...


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...der/index.html

I'm sure that the Bush campaign wants him to run. Nothing like diminishing your opponent's votes.

The thought of Nadar running must send shivers down the back of every serious candidate.

I love his history as a consumer advocate, but I don't think he should run. It would be great if a Green Party candidate could get the party the 5% it needs, but I think 2004 will be too critical for that.

I agree with Munchkin. It would be kind of a waste for him to run if he's hoping to get his five percent. There's basically no way he'd get it this year.

As for Bush being happy if Nader runs -- given that people saw what happened last time, I think that anybody who votes for Nader over the Democratic candidate has accepted the fact that their vote is "helping" Bush. In fact, the number of people who decide between Nader and the Dem candidate and ultimately choose Nader will be very small, if it exists at all -- most of the people who voted for Nader in 2000 would not have voted for Gore even if Nader hadn't been there, or if they did they were in states that they were sure would go to Gore. That will be even more true this time around.

How about the fact that the guy is an idiot and most of his supporters (not all) are idiots too who just want to join an alternative party for the heck of it?

-Rudey

In 2000, my friend told me that if everyone who wanted to vote for Nader did so, he would be elected President. I told him that if everyone who wanted to vote for Nader did so, Bush would be elected President. In 2000 a vote for Nader was a vote against Al Gore. Just like in 1992, when a vote for Perot was a vote against George Bush the elder.

Ralph Nader actually spoke at my freshman orientation. "Look to your left, look to your right, one of you won't be here in four years." Most of the freshman weren't in that auditorium for four minutes. There was a stampede for the door. :p

Dean is clearly very liberal. I don't know if Nader will have the same effect against Dean as he did Gore. This is assuming Dean gets the Democratic Pres nod.

Don't say that very loudly. LOL!

Howard Dean is hardly very liberal but most Democrats are not well informed enough to know that. As Governor of Vermont he was considered conservative. He was cheap. He was against welfare. One time he publicly chastised a welfare mom and asked her if she was too good to work. A number of Vermont politicians even considered him a closet Republican. The New Yorker magazine even compared him to George Bush. They're both New Englanders who came from old money and attended Yale. George Bush's grandmother was even a bridesmaid at Howard Dean's grandmother's wedding. Dean's father, grandfather and great grandfather were Wall Street bankers. His economic policy sure isn't liberal.

No, I haven't accepted that fact,because I think it's inherently faulty logic. I voted for the candidate who best represented the ideals I believed in. I couldn't tell the difference between Bush and Gore, and in good faith I couldn't bring myself to vote for either candidate.

To suggest that Nader supporters somehow "helped" Bush is counterproductive, IMO. There were many, many other factors that came into play that led to Gore's defeat, not the least of which is the whole Florida/Katherine Harris debacle. People fought and died for my right to vote for whatever candidate I saw fit, not whatever candidate everyone else is voting for.

Madmax, you raise a good point. The more I read about Dean, the less I trust him. I never thought I'd say this, but there is no one on either side that I'd want to give my vote to. It's pretty discouraging. :(

Agreed. Most of his social policies lean toward the liberal side but economically he is much more conservative. But the Bush admin is doing all they can to keep this a secret.

Of course, what passes for "conservative" in Vermont is not exactly conservative in every part of the country.

I agree with you that I certainly don't think Nader was the reason why Bush won the election. Every Nader voter I knew carefully weighed the idea that voting for Nader would mean one less vote for Gore, and they chose to do it anyway. Even those who were in swing states like mine. I don't think these are people that would have voted for Gore had Nader not been in the running -- they were people that would have voted for another candidate or not voted at all. And for those who might have voted for Gore had Nader not been running, they knew the risk and accepted it anyway, knowing full well that Nader wasn't going to win. They took a look at their priorities and said that Nader getting his five percent was more important to them than ensuring a moderate Democratic candidate was in the White House. I think it's extremely faulty logic to say that Nader helped Bush win. And I think that, given the situation of the last election, people will weigh their votes even more carefully this time around if Nader does decide to run.

All I was saying is that people who decide to vote for Nader have accepted the fact that their vote is not going towards the Democratic candidate, and if somebody wants to count that as helping Bush than so be it.

Nader? No business.

It's unconstitutional and ridiculous to say don't vote for Nader because it's voting for Bush. Listen it's not this life or death situation here that it's so critical to get Bush out. You don't see Bush saying a vote for Buchanan is a vote for Gore. This is not a 2 party system.

-Rudey