Is Nader really a vote thief

ladygreek · #1 02-25-2008, 12:44 AM

Once again Ralph Nader has entered the presidential race. And once again folx are sating he well siphon Dem votes from Obama and Clinton.

It has been said by many that he was part of the reason that Bush beat Gore because he took votes from Gore. Does anyone have proof of this? Could it be his got his votes from folx who were not inclined to vote for any of the other candidates?

Does anyone have stats to prove the allegations?

Should dems really be concerned about Ralph Nader?

5Knowledge1913 · #2 02-25-2008, 12:51 AM

That's why he continues to run for President in my opinion, simply to take votes from other candidates. It is obvious that this man will not win a Presidential election, so I see it as a ploy for taking votes from others. Is there proof? I do not know, but I believe that this tactic is kind of obvious.

DSTCHAOS · #3 02-25-2008, 12:54 AM

I couldn't find anything on it other than:

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/deanna/47500/ and this is a blogsite that basically says the "stole votes from Al Gore" is false. Not like this is credible.

DSTCHAOS · #4 02-25-2008, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5Knowledge1913

That's why he continues to run for President in my opinion, simply to take votes from other candidates. It is obvious that this man will not win a Presidential election, so I see it as a ploy for taking votes from others. Is there proof? I do not know, but I believe that this tactic is kind of obvious.

I think he's running for the same reason that Independents tend to run: To get whatever issues that they value at the forefront and/or to see their name in the limelight.

Hip hop hooraaaay, though.

ladygreek · #5 02-25-2008, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I think he's running for the same reason that Independents tend to run: To get whatever issues that they value at the forefront and/or to see their name in the limelight.

Hip hop hooraaaay, though.

Exactly. I mean why did Ron Paul run? Or any of the other candidates that have dropped out who didn't have a snow ball's chance in hell to win their party's nomination.

Also would Nader have affected the electoral college vote that much--if at all--in that election? That's is what did Gore in.

BTW, how many of you who are down on him know his history of consumer advocacy? Heck there was a time you mentioned his name and the corporate giants shook in their boots. He has always been for the "little people" consumers who had no voice. In fact he is the reason some of you enjoy the privileges you have as consumers today. He was a pre-Michael Moore.

Don't get me wrong--I am not supporting his run. I am just concerned about folx jumping on bandwagons without any proof. And I do hope that the Dem nominee will hear whatever issues Nader brings to the table.

mulattogyrl · #6 02-25-2008, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5Knowledge1913

That's why he continues to run for President in my opinion, simply to take votes from other candidates. It is obvious that this man will not win a Presidential election, so I see it as a ploy for taking votes from others. Is there proof? I do not know, but I believe that this tactic is kind of obvious.

I lean toward thinking this way too. Why is putting himself in the race now? However, I have no proof of any of this. It just seems odd to me.

DSTCHAOS · #7 02-25-2008, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladygreek

BTW, how many of you who are down on him know his history of consumer advocacy? Heck there was a time you mentioned his name and the corporate giants shook in their boots. He has always been for the "little people" consumers who had no voice. In fact he is the reason some of you enjoy the privileges you have as consumers today. He was a pre-Michael Moore.

Ralph Nader used to be the man, especially in the 80s. It makes me think of Phil Donahue's show when Ralph Nader used to be on there all the time.

Michael Moore sucks and could never touch Nader.

33girl · #8 02-25-2008, 11:21 AM

Gore did not win because people did not want to vote for Gore. PERIOD.

I'm tired of this "hold your nose and vote" strategy by the Democrats. Pick someone that the country can actually vote FOR, not someone that their highest attribute is "he's not Bush." It reminds me of the girls who say about their boyfriend "well, he doesn't beat me up."

Oh, and if you didn't watch this...do so ASAP.

TonyB06 · #9 02-25-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5Knowledge1913

That's why he continues to run for President in my opinion, simply to take votes from other candidates. It is obvious that this man will not win a Presidential election, so I see it as a ploy for taking votes from others. Is there proof? I do not know, but I believe that this tactic is kind of obvious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulattogyrl

I lean toward thinking this way too. Why is putting himself in the race now? However, I have no proof of any of this. It just seems odd to me.

I agree with both of you. If Ralph Nader were interested in being anything other than a "political social gadfly" he'd have put himself in the race much sooner, allowing for a closer, fresher? examination of his issues.

Pragmatically, if primary voting patterns continue to hold as they are, (D's significantly outpacing R's in primaries/caucuses) Nader won't have the ability to impact 2008 as he did 2000.

He probably won't impact McCain's numbers significantly; and while most people won't take Nader seriously, he will stand to left of Obama on most issues, which, Obama strategists may try to use in their race to the middle, where all U.S. elections are won.

ladygreek · #10 02-25-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyB06

Pragmatically, if primary voting patterns continue to hold as they are, (D's significantly outpacing R's in primaries/caucuses) Nader won't have the ability to impact 2008 as he did 2000.

Exactly what impact did he have in 2000, specifically on Gore. Stats please.

Quote:

He probably won't impact McCain's numbers significantly; and while most people won't take Nader seriously, he will stand to left of Obama on most issues, which, Obama strategists may try to use in their race to the middle, where all U.S. elections are won.

So you are saying he could possible help Obama?

Ten/Four · #11 02-25-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 33girl

Gore did not win because people did not want to vote for Gore. PERIOD.

I'm tired of this "hold your nose and vote" strategy by the Democrats. Pick someone that the country can actually vote FOR, not someone that their highest attribute is "he's not Bush." It reminds me of the girls who say about their boyfriend "well, he doesn't beat me up."

I agreee about the Gore statement. I have no problem with Nader being in the race because I don't think this time around most Democrats will vote for him. He said himself on Sunday's Meet the Press that if the Dems didn't sweep McCain they should just hang it up.

mccoyred · #12 02-25-2008, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladygreek

Exactly what impact did he have in 2000, specifically on Gore. Stats please.

So you are saying he could possible help Obama?

I think he will help Obama. Independents like myself often vote for the third party candidate when neither is acceptable (ie Gore vs Bush). However, this year, Independents have a Democratic candidate that they can see themselves voting for; I don't think that McCain is appealing enough to Independents although he may get a few conservative leaning votes.

ladygreek · #13 02-25-2008, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mccoyred

Independents like myself often vote for the third party candidate when neither is acceptable (ie Gore vs Bush).

That's what I am talking about.

rhoyaltempest · #14 02-27-2008, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladygreek

Exactly. I mean why did Ron Paul run? Or any of the other candidates that have dropped out who didn't have a snow ball's chance in hell to win their party's nomination.

Also would Nader have affected the electoral college vote that much--if at all--in that election? That's is what did Gore in.

BTW, how many of you who are down on him know his history of consumer advocacy? Heck there was a time you mentioned his name and the corporate giants shook in their boots. He has always been for the "little people" consumers who had no voice. In fact he is the reason some of you enjoy the privileges you have as consumers today. He was a pre-Michael Moore.

Don't get me wrong--I am not supporting his run. I am just concerned about folx jumping on bandwagons without any proof. And I do hope that the Dem nominee will hear whatever issues Nader brings to the table.

I think it's fine if he wants to run but he shouldn't be allowed to enter the race NOW. I think there should be some time limit on when you can enter the race. People should think long and hard before voting for him though. There is too much at stake to be satisfied with making a statement.

Velocity_14 · #15 02-27-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

I think it's fine if he wants to run but he shouldn't be allowed to enter the race NOW. I think there should be some time limit on when you can enter the race. People should think long and hard before voting for him though. There is too much at stake to be satisfied with making a statement.

Yes, Yes, Yes!!!