National Averages..Nader takes TWICE(!) from * than Kerry

[LimpingLib]

www.realclearpolitics.com

2 way

Bush 49.0%

Kerry 46.4%

3 way

Bush 48.4%

Kerry 46.1%

Nader 1.3%


Our dirty tricks in Ohio could backfire in a terrible way. Its pathetic Nader only bothered to get 3,000 signatures (out of a paltry 5,00 needed , Ohio is one of the most easy to get on the ballot)in a state with 10 people and aprogressive Democrat majority within the party plus many progressive indi's and none registered citizens. We however made a mountain out of a Pro-Kerry molehill (Naders presence on the ballot would hurt Bush more in Ohio than almost anywhere else)and mistook it as a negative.

Edit need 5,000 signatures in Ohio and the state has 10 MILLION people not 10 lol

[Florida_Geek]

1. I know of Repugs that are voting Nader because they will not vote Kerry

but hate Bush.

[deadmessengers]

2. dirty tricks?

OUR dirty tricks? Please, tell me what dirty tricks you're referring to - I'd love to know. The fact is that we (the body of Democrats nationwide) have had to bitchslap one Repugnican attempt to suppress the Democratic vote after another.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LimpingLib]

7. Look Pal.

I have pointed out in endless private conversations that polls heavily oversample Republicans and as far back as early September when everybody on TV thought Kerry was dead I have been saying Bush doesnt have a chance (been saying it before but it meant something in early SEptember).

Plus Kerry has had an average lead in battleground states of plus 5% even through the September dark times when everybody thought he was dead.

[Awsi Dooger]

10. I'll throw out one fact that indicates you may be correct

In looking at state polls the past week or so, including respected polls like ARG, I have noticed almost every one has Nader below 1% among Democrats and 1% or slightly higher among Republicans. That is completely reversed from the same state polls in September. Nader wins more support among independents than anyone else, according to those polls.

I'm not sure it's accurate or makes any sense, but I almost posted it here today after noticing the trend all week. Was certain I would be lanced as a freeper or worse, if that's possible, so I passed.

[David Dunham]

25. I do not agree with your view. No poll says Nader hurts Bush.

[LimpingLib]

27. pollS POLL(S) poll's' plural (see link)

n/t

[fujiyama]

4. Bullshit

Nader is no help in WI and MN.

[beniciodeltoro]

5. what the hell are you talking about?

c r a z y

[Hippo_Tron]

6. Sounds like a crock of shit to me...

Any Republican who won't vote for Bush will vote libertarian, not Nader.

[The Magistrate]

8. All That Has Happened, Fellow

Is that persons of left and progressive views have shown a great deal of sense, and rejected en masse the siren's call of the wrecker splinterist, adopting instead the tactic of Popular Front behind the least reactionary of the two major candidates, thus leaving the splinterist wrecker with a paltry rag-tag of America-Firsters and similar reactionary scum to make up his camp-followers....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[LimpingLib]

16. One way of looking at it (aside from your hyper boil I agree)

I look at it this way. Exit polls show that at worst (Im taking the exit polls that most agree with your ilk)Nader hurt Gore a net 0.7% and some show it was about half that. One showed Nader took 38% from Gore and 25% from Bush with the rest new voter types (or old voters sick of everything). Another showed he took 47% from Gore and 21% from Bush , thats the worse.

0.4%-0.7% isnt a huge number compared to the fact that exit polls showed 1%+ out of Naders 2.7% wouldnt have voted for either.

This time the polls seem to show that 0.6% are coming from Bush and 0.4% are new voters to those disgusted. Only 0.3% from Kerry.

I tend to think therw would be whole lot more new voters if we wouldnt try to hard to undermind Nader (both now and in 2000)almost to the point of irrevelance.

Had we let Nader breath and participate in 2000 then we would be doing much better among those then potential new voters NOW (sadly they never came into the system).Double that with our knocking him off the ballot (which was a grassroots effort, nader didnt do jack to get on the ballot) we have effectivly not only disenfranchised new and progressive voters but infact shot ourselves in several places in the foot.

[The Magistrate]

26. If You Insist, Fellow

In both Florida and New Hampshire the subtraction by splinterist dilletantes was sufficient to throw the electoral votes to the criminals of the '00 Coup. That is sufficient to earn the detestation of anyone concerned with preventing the worst elements of reaction in our polity from dominating national office.

By the way, who are you intending to vote for next Teusday?

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[LimpingLib]

28. Florida yes New Hampshire none conclusive.

Kerry.

But Kerry has all but won my state anyway.

And in my above reply I meant to say 0.4% are new voters OR (not "to") those disgusted. Around that typical poor syntax and typographical errors I showed the average polls showed Nader took 0.6% from Bush and 0.3% from Kerry.

Another Florida will take the same votes from Bush as it did from Gore and "throw the election".

Either way (lucky its a wash we loose in 00 and win in 04) I want those 0.4% none Bush/Kerry voters to register and VOTE.

[The Magistrate]

30. Then The Fact Remains, Sir

That the responsibility for the outcome in 2000 remains with the splinterist and wrecker, and the persons naive enough to take seriously his "not a dime's worth of difference" patter. Fortunately, the latter element is in awfully short supply this time around....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[LimpingLib]

33. Well, you can look at many factors in Florida.

Blame the blacks who voted for Bush. Blame the several 10s of thousands of Butterfly Jewish Buchanan voters. Heck O'Reilly in his infinite arogance claims we lost Florida because Gore didnt come on his show.

Forget all the other crap? I just hit the tip of floating frozen wasteland we call our democracy.



I look at it this way. If Nader had made a major run in 1996 or done better in the 1992 primary then it would have brought endless new voters in.More than 537 of them would have voted Gore in later elections , like 2000 ...like in Florida.

We need more voices especially prominent ones like Nader.

[The Magistrate]

34. None Of That Matters, Sir

Three factors combined to make that occur; the absence of any one would have produced a different, and much better result. One of those factors was absolutely under the control of Wrecker Nader and the deluded fools on the left who cast vores for him. There is really nothing further to discuss about it....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[lastknowngood]

9. Bull stuff

nader the traitor is the enemey.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

11. Don't even bother trying - these people will never listen.

They are more anti-Nader and anti-Green than the Republicans.

It doesn't matter that you are right, it only matters that "Nader cost Gore the 2000 election, the evil bastard!" Forget about the rigged vote, that had nothing to do with it, it was the few percent who may have voted for Gore had nader not been in the race that lost the 2000 election.

Except of course when it comes to discussing the security of the electoral process, then it was the USSC that cheated the voters and Gave the election that Gore won to Bush... but don't expect them to be consistent.

[The Magistrate]

12. Who Are You Voting For, Dear?

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[LimpingLib]

13. Why does he/she need to take a background check?

Is he/she being flagged for......um....checking out the fatcs......telling the truth ...not letting short sighted moments of hyper emotion and popular soundbites color reality?

[The Magistrate]

14. We Are Old Acquaintances, Fellow

His background is well known to me....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[TheWebHead]

15. I think it's pretty obvious amongst Nader supporters

that claiming you would support Kerry if Bush were not on the ballot only helps Kerry's claim that Nader is a spoiler. Of course if a Nader supporter is questioned, in order to ad credibility, they'd tell pollsters that they would otherwise support Bush. If you watch Nader campaign appearances, he constantly tries to point out that he takes more votes from Bush than from Kerry, it is a clear message to his base that if they are ever asked, tell pollsters that you'd otherwise vote for Bush.

[LimpingLib]

17. I wish our nation was so cunning.

You are talking average schmucks now?


Our nations citizens are about as ignorant as they come. More Egyptians knew about the 2000 Camp David peace talks than the residents of the local towns in Maryland where they were actualy taking place.

I know. I took polls lol.

[TheWebHead]

21. Nader supporters are not average voters

They by default are more politically active, otherwise they would go for Dems or Repubs as polling, debates, and news coverage would lead them. The most damaging portrayal of a Nader voter is that he's spoiling chance for liberal rule and casting a vote for George Bush, so the reflexive action would be to say you'd otherwise vote Bush to neutralize that meme.

[LimpingLib]

24. If they are so smart and covert then why.....

...... dont they all move to a small state like Wyoming and take it over?

Heck 1.3% of our nation is 4 million. It only takes a tiny portion of that number to take over 10 or more states.

[TheWebHead]

31. lemme get this straight

you're equating telling a pollster you'd otherwise vote for Bush to someone making a significant life change moving them and their family to another state, quitting their jobs, moving away from other family members, so that their vote would have a greater chance of Nader willing 3-4 electoral votes? Are you serious?

[djg21]

18. I disagree . . .strongly.

There is not likely to be a large republican protest vote given the closeness of this election. If it looked like Bush had a large margin and would win in any event, more Repubs would cast votes for Nader.

Moreover, those repubs who would be likely to cast protest votes if this election were not so close, would also seem to be the same ones that would, for strategic reasons, claim to be voting for Nader in pre-election polls.

There is no way to sugar-coat it! Nader is a scumbag and can only hurt the Dems.

[LimpingLib]

20. We are talking SMALL numers not "large".

There are voters who are as Pro Life as they are economic progressive.

They literally need to flip a coin to decide between Nader or Bush.

[djg21]

29. This makes no sense.

Given no clear preference for Bush or Nader, it would seem that your hypothetical republican voters would vote for whichever of the two candidates could most realistically defeat Kerry. They would not vote for Nader if doing so would result in a Kerry win.

Your premise is flawed, and Nader is still a self-aggrandizing scumbag.

[LimpingLib]

32. Does it make sense that people commit suicide?

Or a whole hoast of other nasty things (like putting red hot coals up their pee holes)?

You are taking a small number and trying to use the "my neighbor never did that so why would anybody else" excuse. O.K. that isnt as classic as the dog ate my homework , and I admit I just mad it up.


Lets just cut the B.S. and read polls. Everybody obsesses with them anyway so why ignore then now when we are learning something?

[rlev1223]

19. Nader's support from the left...

...has evaporated, so remaining Nader voters are
iconclasts, eccentrics and cranks. It isn't surprising that what the remaining Nader voters hurt Bush as much as or more than Kerry.

[LimpingLib]

22. You followed the link!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Amazing.

Wish others would too.


To those who strongly disagree, this is a just the most recent average. Days from now it could be an even wash.

Still the shinning of light on the truth is very important.

Many peoples version of reality on who Nader hurts is simply at odds with realitys version of reality.

[Eric J in MN]

23. and colllege students

who think Nader is an anti-war candidate (though Nader went to ZERO anti-war rallies).

[ZombieNixon]

35. However, compare the spread in Oregon

in 2000 to the spread in Oregon now. Gore won OR by only 0.7% largely due to Nader. This year, Nader is off the OR ballot and Kerry is doing significantly better there.

[LimpingLib]

37. If we wouldnt be so beholden to corperate interests....

.... then the 2000 Oregon results should be the poster child for our nation. (Oregon Democrats are half decent so it worked for Oregon)

Kick the right wing crap far and wide enough so that 3rd partys dont "disrupt" like in Canada, Great Britain , Germany , etc.

In Canada , with a favorable wind at their backs, the conservative party got 29% of the vote. 2 progressive 3rd partys got 20% (between the 2 15.7% and 4.3%)and the ruling center-left party got 36%.

You heard that right. The land of white protestant males (and females)votes that way. And our less white land could too.

Thats about how it would be here if we simply got the extra 20% to turnout (they get 70% turnout when we get 50%).Look at ANY other democratic nation and you will see that with high turnout , and vibrant progressive 3rd partys , we still (center-left types) win.

[LoZoccolo]

36. Excuse me, dirty tricks?

Nader's campaign should not be breaking ballot access laws. Those are not dirty tricks.