In 2004 wasn't he-who-must-not-be-named

[4themind]

effectively nullified because
1.)He couldn't get the support of the Green party establishment
and
2.)His efforts to get on the ballot in various states, were held up in the courts
If this is the case, it seems to me that there shouldn't be too much cause for concern about his affect on the race, for now, until he pulls something different from his sleeve (of course if he weren't running we wouldn't have to worry about this at all) but I think we should keep things in perspective...

[lazer47]

1. He is nothing but a Repug hack ,,,,used by them to steal votes

[pbca]

2. He's used by them - he isn't one of them

Nader is convenient for the republicans and used by them, but I don't doubt his sincerity.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. That's irrational. I'm not advocating voting for Nader and I'm not voting for Nader,

but your statement makes no logical sense.

A voter who is disillusioned with the two major parties would be more likely to vote for Nader, in my opinion, after reading your illogical attack, than if you would present a coherent reason to vote for our party's nominee.

Or if you were to critique what is wrong with Nader's views on the issues.

Our two major parties have set up a system that guarantees that any third party/independent run for any office by necessity acts as a spoiler. It doesn't have to be that way. I don't blame the spoiler factor on any third party candidate, because they have zero control over the system imposed by the two major parties.

If spoilers bug you, perhaps we can work together to get instant run off, fusion voting, or another constitutionally sound system that allows for democratic plurality without creating a system that makes spoilers possible.

Anybody can run for president, after all, if they were born in the US and are 35 years of age.

[lazer47]

9. Call me anything you want,, Nader is still a hack, worn out hack

for that matter.

[Selatius]

3. The Green Party ran David Cobb and Pat LaMarche for prez and vp that year.

They were largely sacrificial lambs at best, yet their platform, I must admit, would be what I want the Dem platform to be.

Nader running would've helped no party to the left of the Dems get public financing because he ran by himself with no official party support from anything on the left. Even if he had won 5 percent, necessary to qualify for public financing in the next election cycle, the Greens would not have reaped any benefit from that.

[scheming daemons]

4. He only got 0.38% of the vote... why are we even talking about him?

..

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. I'm Not Worried, I Just Hate The Piece Of Shit Motherfucker.

I don't need to consider him to be a threat, in order to loathe every cell in his piece of shit body.

[Scooter24]

6. In the general vote, he is pretty insignificant...

However, this isn't good news when it comes to states where it can come down to a few thousand votes in either direction i.e. Florida 2000.

We as a party need to make sure our candidate stays well ahead of our rivals by considerable margins to nullify any 3rd-party threat.

[cloudythescribbler]

7. I think maneuvering to keep him off the ballot today & in the past is INAPPROPRIATE ...

That said, here's how I feel about the Nader candidacy, especially in 2000 -- and the sheer nonsense about how he is supposedly effectively presenting issues being ignored in the mainstream (repost):

(I can't say that I have read a whole lot of material from the Obama campaign myself, but on the other hand, I don't put so much stock in all the specifics outlined by candidates in these documents). I have watched some 8 debates and several speeches by Obama during the campaign, and seen plenty of detail for my purposes there and in extensive social commentary.

Actually, the advantage of figures like Nader, to the extent that in an election where the ONLY significant impact they could possibly have is to be a spoiler helping the Repukes get power, is that they advocate positions, details or no details, like single payer health insurance ignored by the mainstream.

Nevertheless, as in the past, including Nader's MOST SUCCESSFUL (both in getting votes and in possibly tipping the election FROM the Democrats to the Repugs) in 2000, the MSM attention on Nader has been almost exclusively on his role as a spoiler, and he has done little to counteract that. In 2000 in particular, he spent LOTS of time campaigning in swing states like Penn, Ohio, and FL, and relatively little both in solid blue states (like MA, CT, and CA) AND IN SOLID RED STATES WHERE HE WOULDN'T ACT AS A SPOILER (such as TX, WY, and IN). Most states and jurisdictions fall into one of those two categories, even in widely contested races with many states "in play" such as in 2000.

What this and other factors show me is that Nader is more interested in drawing attention than in 'going hunting where the ducks are'. After all, the logic of the two MAIN candidates under the present system is to FOCUS on all the "purple" and 'purplish' states such as CO, MO, MN, OH, and FL, while the logic of someone running to get at least the minimum 5% threshold to qualify for federal financing (and possibly being included in the debates as well) is, as noted, exactly the opposite.
Nader, even in 2000, didn't even come CLOSE to getting 5% of the national vote.

As for building up a progressive movement (something I am very interested in, in its proper context, with groups like sds/mds -- the newly reconstituted students for a democratic society/movement for a democratic society) the fact that at Nader's main appearances in DC, his audience(s) were reportedly almost entirely white belies any notion that he is really effective in pursuit of that at least ostensible goal either

cloudy the scribbler