Nader back to siphoning votes

[Buccaneer]

Nader is back to running for president and DNC and Kerry/Edwards have their worst nightmare come true. The need all of the leftist votes they can get and Nader will suck many of them in states that they can't afford to lose votes.

[Fritz]

Good, lets put some more options out there for folks.

[Senator]

He is the anti-Perot. Take the votes away from the party that resembles you most.

Most famous ----
Teddy Roosevelt - Bull Moose Party took away the majority of votes from incumbent Taft, splitting the Republican party and giving the White House to Woodrow Wilson. How history changes on a dime.

[albionmoonlight]

Why Pat Buchannon & Pat Robertson can't get together and do this, I'll never understand.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Good, lets put some more options out there for folks.

I agree. Even if Ralph himself is insane, we need more options (ideally they would be better options, but this is something) than the Rebuplic backed thieves, and the Democrat backed thieves.

[QuikSand]

If you live in a state where your vote clearly isn't going to matter... does it make sense to vote for the most promising third party candidate, just because it's nationwide vote counts that determine things like federal matching fund qualifications, and so forth? I seem to recall some discussion that the Green Party needed (I think) 5% of the total vote to qualify for some status that they had not yet reached. Seems that people who dislike the two-party domination might consider this an option... even if they aren't too fond of the particulars of the party itself.

I know this raises issues with the true believers on both sides... but I don't really feel particularly well represented by either the Democrat or Republican party, and I'd very much like it if there were more viable options, at some point in my lifetime.

[Fritz]

IMHO, third parties can find their place if they can organize their people a little a better. Had the democrats been able to forcast the impact of Nader, they may have been willing to trade cabinet posts for a "green" endorsement. But this arrangement relies on the Greens being able to deliver their voters.

(yes, I know that a parlimentary system is better structured for coalition)

[albionmoonlight]

Is it possible for any party in power to really represent the peoples' interests? It seems that any third party willing to play the game to the extent necessary to get to the level of the top two parties will end up in the same boat as them.

As a quick example (these are just illustrative of hypocracy in general--not meant to start a discussion in their own right) : Some people vote Republican because they believe in smaller federal government. When the Republicans are in power, however, they continue to extend the power of the federal government to implement their policies.

Some people vote Democratic because they believe in not having government beholden to corporate interests. However, Democratic politicians give just as many favors to their benefactors as the "big business" Republicans.

Neither party, in practice, seems to really believe in the ideals that we discuss on this board every day. They believe in nothing more than self preservation.

I don't know if a third party--no matter how noble its roots--would be any different when/if it gets to the top.

[Fritz]

we should be led by Twiki, from Buck Rogers.

[wheels]

i thought nader had already endorsed kucinich. their platforms, especially concerning corporations and trade, are very similar.

[wheels]

i guess, more precisely, i don't see the issues nader wants to bring to the debates that haven't already been backed by kucinich. maybe with three candidates in the debates instead of 8, nader feels his voice will be heard more than kucinich's?

[rkmsuf]

he's bored...needs something to do...

[digamma]

Isn't one of the points of the median voter theorem that in a "state" where a two-party system exists, there isn't the opportunity for a viable third party to co-exist, but rather, only to replace one of the two existing parties?

Not that that theorem is necessarily infallible.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

If you live in a state where your vote clearly isn't going to matter... does it make sense to vote for the most promising third party candidate, just because it's nationwide vote counts that determine things like federal matching fund qualifications, and so forth? I seem to recall some discussion that the Green Party needed (I think) 5% of the total vote to qualify for some status that they had not yet reached. Seems that people who dislike the two-party domination might consider this an option... even if they aren't too fond of the particulars of the party itself.

I know this raises issues with the true believers on both sides... but I don't really feel particularly well represented by either the Democrat or Republican party, and I'd very much like it if there were more viable options, at some point in my lifetime.

This has been my exact point of view ever since I've reached voting age. In New Jersey here, the democratics should easily win the state again. I will cast yet another vote for Ralph Nader. Aside from supporting the general concept of the third party, I'll be voting for someone who has actually done a shitload of good for the consumer/average joe in his lifetime.

And actually I believe it's 10% of the national vote, but you've got the whole concept correct.

EDIT: Now I think your right about 5%... I'll try to find some verification.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

If you live in a state where your vote clearly isn't going to matter... does it make sense to vote for the most promising third party candidate, just because it's nationwide vote counts that determine things like federal matching fund qualifications, and so forth? I seem to recall some discussion that the Green Party needed (I think) 5% of the total vote to qualify for some status that they had not yet reached. Seems that people who dislike the two-party domination might consider this an option... even if they aren't too fond of the particulars of the party itself.

I know this raises issues with the true believers on both sides... but I don't really feel particularly well represented by either the Democrat or Republican party, and I'd very much like it if there were more viable options, at some point in my lifetime.

Quik:

That COMPLETELY makes sense for me. My wife and I both voted for Browne (libertarian) in 2000. We weren't enamored with Dubya, but we definitely didn't want Gore in. Living in Georgia, we felt it to be a safe bet that Gore wouldn't get our electoral votes.

[Easy Mac]

this is why i don't vote in sc... though i may have to vote for governor to get rid of the retard in there now.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

This has been my exact point of view ever since I've reached voting age. In New Jersey here, the democratics should easily win the state again. I will cast yet another vote for Ralph Nader. Aside from supporting the general concept of the third party, I'll be voting for someone who has actually done a shitload of good for the consumer/average joe in his lifetime.

And actually I believe it's 10% of the national vote, but you've got the whole concept correct.

EDIT: Now I think your right about 5%... I'll try to find some verification.

Just take note that it currently looks like Nader will not be running for the Green Party but rather as an independent candidate. Of course, you can still vote for him to show your support, but it won't count towards the Green Party trying to get that 5% or 10% of the national vote.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Telle

Just take note that it currently looks like Nader will not be running for the Green Party but rather as an independent candidate. Of course, you can still vote for him to show your support, but it won't count towards the Green Party trying to get that 5% or 10% or the national vote.

Thanks for the heads up. Still, in the last election I pretty much voted for the most prominent 3rd party in ever category.

[sabotai]

Yes, it's 5 % to receive federal matching funds, and it's 15% to appear in the debates. Now, how someone can get to 5% without being in the debates is a tough thing to figure out (but it's easy to figure out then why it's at 15%...)

And I will be voting Libertarian across the board.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I know this raises issues with the true believers on both sides... but I don't really feel particularly well represented by either the Democrat or Republican party, and I'd very much like it if there were more viable options, at some point in my lifetime.

It might not apply depending on what you mean by "viable", but in Canada, we have four big federal parties (was recently five until two merged), with various other smaller fringe parties.

Of those, only two realistically stand any chance of ever forming a federal government (and you could argue that only one does these days), but the other two usually get enough votes that they can at least throw some weight around and will occasionally win a provincial election.

To be honest, I don't feel any better represented than my American friends do. I'd suggest the issue isn't necessarily with how many parties you can choose from, but rather with the types of people those parties have to run in order to have a chance at mainstream support.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Yes, it's 5 % to receive federal matching funds, and it's 15% to appear in the debates. Now, how someone can get to 5% without being in the debates is a tough thing to figure out (but it's easy to figure out then why it's at 15%...)

And I will be voting Libertarian across the board.

[Fritz]

anyone have any idea what triggers "equal time."

[wig]

I hate 3rd parties

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by wheels

i guess, more precisely, i don't see the issues nader wants to bring to the debates that haven't already been backed by kucinich. maybe with three candidates in the debates instead of 8, nader feels his voice will be heard more than kucinich's?

Nader knows that Kucinich will be gone when the primaries end. Last fall the buzz from the Nader camp was that he found Dean to be tolerable and didn't want to get involved while he was the frontrunner. Nader started making noise after Kerry took over the frontrunner position. Dean dropped this week. Nader jumped in days later. Coincidence?

[The Afoci]

Originally Posted by wig

I hate 3rd parties

Man, John Galt and Bubba Wheels have been overly insightful during this discussion.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Senator

He is the anti-Perot. Take the votes away from the party that resembles you most.

I see this urban legend perpetuated all of the time. All exit polling indicates that Perot drew roughly evenly from Clinton and Bush. The only thing he prevented was Clinton getting over 50% of the popular vote, although he still won in an electoral landslide.

[clintl]

The last I heard, Nader was going to run as an indepedent, not a Green. The Greens will have their own candidate. And I don't think he will get many votes without the Greens backing him. His presence in the race this time is not going to be as much a factor.

[Senator]

I see this urban legend perpetuated all of the time. All exit polling indicates that Perot drew roughly evenly from Clinton and Bush. The only thing he prevented was Clinton getting over 50% of the popular vote, although he still won in an electoral landslide.

I dispute this claim with every fiber in my body. I don't work by urban legends. It doesn't get me very far in my line of work.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Senator

I dispute this claim with every fiber in my body. I don't work by urban legends. It doesn't get me very far in my line of work.

You dispute the claim that Perot drew roughly 50% from Clinton and Bush? That's what the exit polling indicates.

Secondly, I recall the 1992 election very vividly. In the late summer, AFTER Perot had dropped out of the race, Clinton had a huge lead over Bush. Most polling had him anywhere from 15 to 20 points ahead. When Perot re-entered the race, Clinton's numbers began to drop, Perot's numbers began to climb by almost the same margin, while Bush's numbers remained flat at about 37%. On election day, Clinton dropped to 43%, Perot got 19%, and Bush remained at 37%.

The only thing Ross Perot did (in 1992 and in 1996) was prevent Clinton from getting over 50% of the popular vote. Again, all of the exit polling on Perot voters indicates a final outcome of Clinton 52%, Bush 47% (without Perot in the race). The electoral landslide would have remained the same, 370 to 168.

[Fritz]

it doesnt matter how many people a 3rd party guy takes, it matters if he takes them in states where it changes the ellectoral college vote. Nader taking 5% of cali from gore in 2000 would not have been a big deal, where nader taking 1% in FLA could have been the whole game. By headcount, a 5% in cali is much greater than 1% of FLA.

[Senator]

I recall the 1992 election very vividly

I seem to recall it a little as well, as I was working on the Bush campaign in Texas. Our numbers are different.

I am betting you are right, though, as we lost.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Senator

I seem to recall it a little as well, as I was working on the Bush campaign in Texas. Our numbers are different.

I am betting you are right, though, as we lost.

Did Perot defeat Bush? First, look at the turnout. Perot got 19,660,450 votes. The total turnout was more than 13 million higher than in 1988. So, even though Perot got a lot of votes, 13 million of those voters didn't vote in 1988. Clinton ran 3.1 million votes ahead of Dukakis, but Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than four years earlier. The two party vote fell by 7 million. So, Perot only took 7 million votes from the two parties combined.

If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton's 3.1 million vote lead? Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome clinton's lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush's 46.5%?

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally Posted by Fritz

we should be led by Twiki, from Buck Rogers.

Just make sure Wilma is in his cabinet.

[HornedFrog Purple]

dola

This is for you fritzdaddy...

I remember it well
I was just about three
My dad said
"Son what do you want to be?"
It didn't ring no bells but I said
"Daddy I'm a bit too young what do you want from me?"

I'm much older now
I'm almost a man
I can do anything, you bet I can
Raise a family
Now wouldn't that be grand
So sorry but I got bigger plans

You can be anything in the world today
Something like a preacher, a teacher
A baseball player
Those kind of things I just don't care
I want to represent the USA

The American Dream
As far as the eye I say can you see
I want to be
I want to be the leader of the country

When I'm President
Things will be different
We'll start a new government
When I'm President
When I'm President
You can be in my cabinet
I'll be your heaven sent
President

First things first we're gonna change the rules
Better listen up all you boys and girls
Your president says there'll be no after school
So vote for me wouldn't that be cool

Yeah! Yeah!

Now I know there's trouble in the Middle East
I'll spend all the money when I stop the Arms Race
All my brothers in the desert
Gonna have themselves a feast
When that's done then we'll start on world peace

So go ask Alice
Cos you know what he said
What did he say?
Remember, "I wanna be elected"

[tucker342]

I'm not very worried about any of the third party candidates taking votes away from the Democrats, as I think people will be much more careful about only voting for a third party candidate if it's not a close race.

[Airhog]

I plan to vote for the communist party. Since I am poor It would be in my best interest to redistribute the wealth. Call me a red or whatever, but what have the democrats and republicans done for me lately?


I am in intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Fritz]

thanks Tubby

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Quik:

That COMPLETELY makes sense for me. My wife and I both voted for Browne (libertarian) in 2000. We weren't enamored with Dubya, but we definitely didn't want Gore in. Living in Georgia, we felt it to be a safe bet that Gore wouldn't get our electoral votes.

Isn't it scarey to think that both SD and I voted for the same candidate in 2000. It is a good thing I don't vote anymore.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by The Afoci

Man, John Galt and Bubba Wheels have been overly insightful during this discussion.

You better watch your step or I'm going to put you on my wignore list.

[wig]

Originally Posted by The Afoci

Man, John Galt and Bubba Wheels have been overly insightful during this discussion.

Too late.

[The Afoci]

Originally Posted by John Galt

You better watch your step or I'm going to put you on my wignore list.

Isn't yours a Johngore list...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by The Afoci

Isn't yours a Johngore list...

What kind of agent are you anyway - talking about my Johngore like that. Disgusting.

[Galaril]

What the f@#% is Nader a bush mole or something.Christ, this is a huge difference in the race.It is going to minus 4-6 % of Kerry's votes.Can Kerry have the luxury of losing those votes?I am not so sure he can.I also, don't like the way the US election system allows guys like Nader to jump into the race with like 8 months to go.There has to be a rule of 1 year at leastto declare your candidacy.Nader ...you are a jackass thanks for four more years of Bush.

[Bubba Wheels]

I knew their was something redeeming about ole' Ralph! Corvairs aren't the only things he likes to eliminate!

[ISiddiqui]

Nader ...you are a jackass thanks for four more years of Bush.

Why don't you blame the Democratic candidate for losing the far left? Nader doesn't see any difference between the two parties, since he's a socialist and the two parties are very capitalist, so who does he care gets in the White House? He is running because he feels neither party backs his interests.

Why get angry at that? Because Bush can capture the far right vote but Gore/Kerry can't get the far left?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why don't you blame the Democratic candidate for losing the far left? Nader doesn't see any difference between the two parties, since he's a socialist and the two parties are very capitalist, so who does he care gets in the White House? He is running because he feels neither party backs his interests.

Why get angry at that? Because Bush can capture the far right vote but Gore/Kerry can't get the far left?

I think you make a very valid point.

One more thing. Gore didn't lose because of Ralph Nader. He lost because he was a lousy candidate, and because he ran a pathetic campaign. I have no doubt that Gore would have won the 2000 election if he had utilized Clinton in the campaign (instead of running away from him and treating him like a pariah).

It's really ironic, but Bush and Clinton have more in common as successful politicians than Gore and Clinton do. If you put aside your personal feelings for Bush and Clinton, you have to admit that they both loved being on the campaign trail, and people really connected with them. Gore, on the other hand, looked wooden, distant and uncomfortable, and he was never able to connect with the people in the way that Clinton and Bush did.

Ralph Nader did not cost Al Gore the 2000 election. Al Gore cost Al Gore the 2000 election.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

You dispute the claim that Perot drew roughly 50% from Clinton and Bush? That's what the exit polling indicates.

Secondly, I recall the 1992 election very vividly. In the late summer, AFTER Perot had dropped out of the race, Clinton had a huge lead over Bush. Most polling had him anywhere from 15 to 20 points ahead. When Perot re-entered the race, Clinton's numbers began to drop, Perot's numbers began to climb by almost the same margin, while Bush's numbers remained flat at about 37%. On election day, Clinton dropped to 43%, Perot got 19%, and Bush remained at 37%.

The only thing Ross Perot did (in 1992 and in 1996) was prevent Clinton from getting over 50% of the popular vote. Again, all of the exit polling on Perot voters indicates a final outcome of Clinton 52%, Bush 47% (without Perot in the race). The electoral landslide would have remained the same, 370 to 168.

This is my recollection of the vote in 1992. I think the conventional wisdom early on when Perot reentered the race was that he'd take more votes away from Bush, but in reality, he took more from Clinton, though he took some from both.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I think you make a very valid point.

One more thing. Gore didn't lose because of Ralph Nader. He lost because he was a lousy candidate, and because he ran a pathetic campaign. I have no doubt that Gore would have won the 2000 election if he had utilized Clinton in the campaign (instead of running away from him and treating him like a pariah).

It's really ironic, but Bush and Clinton have more in common as successful politicians than Gore and Clinton do. If you put aside your personal feelings for Bush and Clinton, you have to admit that they both loved being on the campaign trail, and people really connected with them. Gore, on the other hand, looked wooden, distant and uncomfortable, and he was never able to connect with the people in the way that Clinton and Bush did.

Ralph Nader did not cost Al Gore the 2000 election. Al Gore cost Al Gore the 2000 election.

Al Gore ran probably the worst campaign of Democratic candidate since Dukakis. In fact, I think Dukakis ran a better one.

Need proof? Al Gore didn't even carry his home state of Tennessee. For all the hubbub about Florida (and I do think Democrats have a right to be angry about that), if Al Gore just friggin' wins his home state, Florida would have been moot.

[Buccaneer]

Vic, I disagree very much so. In the post-election analysis, it has been concluded by several groups that of the votes Nader got, 50-60% would've gone to Gore, 10-20% to Bush and 20-30% would've not voted. If you take 50% of the votes Nader got in each state and added that to Gore's total - do the math.

Also, review the exit polls about the Clinton factor. Gore didn't lose Arkansas because he ran away from Clinton. Many believe that the Clinton factor was a decisive deteriment in several keys states (based on polls, surveys and exit polling). You could argue that Clinton didn't do enough on Gore's behalf. Regardless of how one campaigns, 60-80% of the voters in many states already had their minds made up just on party affiliation and there's no way they would vote for the other guys - uner any circumstances.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Vic, I disagree very much so.

I think you're reading him too literally. VV (I presume here to put words into his mounth, becaiuse I agree with him) isn't denying that Nader's 90,000+ votes in Florida, for example, drew more away from Goire tha Bush... and he isn't denying that that alone, if reversed, would have granted Gore the state and therefore the win.

I think his point is a little broader... that it's because Gore ran a dreadful campaign that he allowed the race to be close enough to end up being "decided" by a few hundred or thousand votes in any one state. Had Gore made better decisions, he could have won comfortably, rendering any marginal issues in one state or another (and any effect from Nader) totally moot.

Assuming I'm amplifying Vegas Vic correctly here, I do agree with him, and suspect that you might as well.