Ralph Nader Might Decide To Split the Democratic Vote Again
Technorati Tags: Ralph Nader, political spoiler, third-party alternative, independent candidate, presidential campaign
Ralph Nader announced today that he might decide to run for president again in the 2008 election:
Asked on CNN's Late Edition news program if he would run in 2008, the lawyer and consumer activist said, "It's really too early to say. ... I'll consider it later in the year."
Nader, 72, said he did not plan to vote for Clinton, a Democratic senator from New York and former first lady.
"I don't think she has the fortitude. Actually she's really a panderer and a flatterer. As she goes around the country, you'll see more of that," Nader said.
On whether he would be encouraged to run if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, Nader said, "It would make it more important that that be the case."
Lindsay Beyerstein has the perfect response:
Nader is practicing the politics of passive aggression. He has done more to discredit the third party alternative than any politician in our lifetime.
I couldn't agree more.
6 comments:
Hey Kathy!
If voters who normally vote Democrat were so happy with the party, how could Nader take their votes away? Obviously the party's own base is digusted. Nader commented last presidential election that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil. He is correct. You could argue that the Democrats themselves are splitting the vote by refusing to address the concerns of their own voters.
Take Care
Joan
I think this election is too important to cast a symbolic protest vote. That does not mean Nader doesn't have the right to run. Of course he has the right. But it's self-indulgent, egotistical, and destructive to the country, afaik.
In this case, the greater of the two evils actually is evil, literally. Bush is an evil, wicked man, and although he is leaving (thank God), any Republican taking his place who would continue his foreign and domestic policies would be a choice, literally, for evil. In my view, of course.
Hey Kathy!
But how can a voter ever change anything if she slavishly votes for a party that has ceased to represent her and her views? Have you heard Hillary spout off on how the Iraqis should be forced to bring in a gov't that will carry out American policy? You would think she is running for president of Iraq being she wants so much influence over what they do! What makes you think the Democrats will do anything differently? At what point does a vote put her foot down and say "Enough!"? Nader is the only candidate who has well thought out policies that are consistent with a liberal world view.
Take Care
Joan
"Have you heard Hillary spout off on how the Iraqis should be forced to bring in a gov't that will carry out American policy?"
Of course I have. I don't like Hillary Clinton at all. In fact, I have nothing but contempt for her. But she's not the only Democrat running for president. I realize she's considered the front-runner for the nomination, but I'm praying that the Democrats get some brains and put in someone who stands for something other than more Bush-type policies.
"Nader is the only candidate who has well thought out policies that are consistent with a liberal world view."
But Nader isn't going to win, Joan!! He CAN'T win; there's absolutely zero possibility that he would win a presidential election. Given that *reality,* it's self-indulgent (in my view) for him to run, and for opponents of Bush's policies to vote for him if he does.
Hey Kathy!
Well of course Nader isn't going to win if no body votes for him thinking they have to vote Democrat as a "lesser evil". Clinton may not win the party's nomination, but whomever does win it will not be serious about any kind of real change or they'd be Ralph Nader. I guess people really do deserve the gov't they get.
Take Care
Joan
"Well of course Nader isn't going to win if no body votes for him thinking they have to vote Democrat as a "lesser evil"."
Joan, if Ralph Nader runs, it won't be nobody voting for him. People will vote for him. People have voted for him every time he's run for president.
People will vote for Ralph Nader if he runs, Joan. And he will not win. It has nothing to do with voting for the "lesser evil." He just can't win. He wouldn't even be on the ballot in all 50 states. In the U.S. electoral system as it exists, it is near-impossible for a third-party candidate to win. Only one third-party candidate has ever become president in the entire history of the United States (Abraham Lincoln -- the Republican Party at that time was only 8 years old and was considered a third party). The closest anyone has come since then was Ross Perot. He got almost 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992 -- *but he did not win a single electoral vote.*
If you still don't understand why a third-party cannot win a presidential election under our system as currently structured, you can, if you like, read this article:
http://www.answers.com/topic/third-party
Post a Comment