How does Nader take votes from *

[goddess40]

I'm sorry but I don't get it. I've seen several times that exit polls in Florida saying that some of the people who voted for Nader would have voted for * if Nader wasn't on the ballot. Are this people lying or are they just off their rockers.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Total and complete bullshit

There is no way that someone who would vote for ultra-liberal progressive Nader would turn around and vote for Bush. NONE. And the current polls prove that to be true - in polls where the only two choices are Kerry/Bush compared to ones where Nader is also involved, Kerry's numbers drop while Bush's do not.

[balanced]

8. You are correct. It couldn't be clearer.

[AGD4y2357y]

34. This is not entirely true...

When Lieberman was polling above all others early on last year I swore that if he got the nomination I would vote bush. Why? Because I would have been spiteful enough to give the idiots what they asked for. It wouldn't have been as if bush wasn't going to win anyway.

Would I have actually done it if it was election day and I was governed by emotion at the time? Yes. If I was governed by logic at the time? No. Probably would stay home or vote green.

Now there is also a group of people on the left out there (small as they may be) that believes if things get REALLY bad (i.e. another bush term) then the country will swing back to the left. So even though they despise bush, they feel the pay off would be worth it in the end. Would it work? No clue. Would we even have an election after a 2nd bush term? No clue.

[zulchzulu]

2. There is a person who is GOP fan who will vote for Nader

Skippy Buxter plans on voting for Nader instead of Bush this fall. He's the only GOP fan who will.

[MadHound]

3. Actually this is a known fact

Hell, even From, the DLC, along with the 'Pugs acknowledge that Nader takes his votes from three sources. The first are the non-voting majority in this country, people who have dropped out of politics, washing their hands of the entire mess. Nader fires them up and gets them to the polls, quite successfully I might add. He also draws from moderate Republicans, people like McCain, or my stepfather. They are fed up with traditional 'Pug politics being pre-empted by this neo-con/theocratic/corporate whoring that now passes for 'Pug positions, and being as they can't bring themselves to vote for a Dem(kind of like you or I voting for a 'Pug) they register their displeasure by voting for Nader. And finally he pulls votes from the Dems, specifically that group that was formerly the base of the party, the progressive left. We are tired of having our party hijacked by the DLC/corporate whoring New Dems, who put profit before people.

And if the Dems don't wake up and smell the coffee, I can guarantee you that there will be more third party leftists running, especially with the Greens. In the end, this will weaken and finally kill that corrupt corporate shell known as the Democratic Party, and allow a new party, one that is beholden to it's constituents, not cororations, to rise in the Dems place. It has happened before in this country, don't be suprised when it happens again.

[sangh0]

4. Yeah, right

More of the "Nader running for elections helps the Dems"

After all, it's not like recent elections support that argument, but MadHound will argue it in the face of the contradictory evidence.

[MadHound]

5. Here's a little factoid for you Sang

Even your beloved Democrat leader, Al From, doesn't believe Nader pulled more Dem votes than 'Pugs. And he has a hell of a lot better exit polls than you do friend. From Blueprint magazine, in an article penned by From: "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."
<http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919>

Now what was that about contradictory evidence? Do you have anything at all to back your positions, or are you simply shooting from the hip again?

[sangh0]

6. "Factoid" means "not a fact. It only resembles a fact"

What Al From says is otherwise known as "an opinion"

Not a fact. Thanks for once again demonstrating how the Naderites delusions render them incapable of distinguishing fact from opinion.

[MadHound]

11. Jeez, sarcasm goes right over your head doesn't it?

Here is the online Webster definition:Main Entry: fac·toid
Pronunciation: 'fak-"toid
Function: noun
1 : an invented fact believed to be true because of its appearance in print
2 : a brief and usually trivial news item

I was using the second meaning in a sarcastic way, but apparently you didn't pick up on that. Next time I'll leave a blinking neon sign for you.

But all of this is beside the main point. Al From and the Democratic Party, as with any organization dealing seriously with electoral politics, have excellent, well trained exit pollsters. And if From is stating information gleaned from his pollsters, I generally tend to trust it. Really now, wouldn't you be expecting the Dems to be looking for a scapegoat? Instead they found that Nader wasn't a detrimental influence on the election. But hey, this doesn't match your beliefs, so instead of responding with facts, links, cites, you respond with semantic games and ridicule. Typical, sadly typical.:eyes:

[sangh0]

12. Spin goes nowhere

You presented From's opinion as a fact, and as evidence. Now, in an intellectually bankrupt gambit, you want to portray it as either "invented" or "trivial", while at the same time argue that it's important ("excellent, well trained exit pollsters") and real.

And all of this to support the delusion that Nader had no effect in 2000, but we should vote for him in 2004 so he can have an effect.

[MadHound]

19. Sang, ol' pal, ol' friend.

I'm still waiting to see something concrete to back your assertions up with. All you're giving me is spin and semantics here, to the point where I'm not even sure what you're saying.

Facts Sang, Facts. They'll be your friend if you'll just use them.

[sangh0]

21. Backing away from your earlier remarks

I wonder if you'll ever explain how From's comment is both a trivial factoid, AND an imporant fact.

[balanced]

7. New party

"In the end, this will weaken and finally kill that corrupt corporate shell known as the Democratic Party, and allow a new party, one that is beholden to it's constituents, not cororations, to rise in the Dems place."

It already has "weakened" the party. Remember 2000.

If you really believe that a new party will arise which is not beholden to the corporations (whatever that means), I've got a nice piece of canyonlands property in northern Arizona I'd like to sell you.

[sangh0]

9. You missed the contradiction

Even though Nader has explicitely stated his desire to weaken (and even Kill) the Democratic Party, and the widespread acknowledgment that Nader's run in 2000 contributed to the theft of an election, the Naderites will continue to argue that Nader's run in 2000 had NO EFFECT, and his run in 2004 can only have a good effect.

[MadHound]

13. I love canyon country

Sadly though, I can't stand the heat.

As far as beholden to the corporations goes, since you seem to not know, it means that the Democratic Party has been sold out to big business. Some of Clinton's biggest contributors were also the biggest beneficiairies of his legislative largesse. Can you say NAFTA? Or the '96 Telecom Act? Welfare "reform"(welfare to work), all of these and more benefitted the largest Democratic donors at the time. Don't believe me, go check out the '96 and '92 top Dem donors list and compare it to the legislation passed in the eight year Clinton term. Or if you want the quick and dirty version, go read Kevin Phillips "Wealth and Democracy" And yes, continued corporate corruption will kill the Dems as a party. More and more people are getting disgusted with how "business as usual" is being conducted and are either opting out of politics altogether, or going Green.

And yes, you can have a political party uncorrupted by big business. All you have to do is simply refuse any and all corporate donations. The Greens have always followed this practice, and that is one reason why they are attracting more people to their party. Unlike the Dems, who are bought and paid for, the Greens are only responsible to the people who voted and supported them. The Dems simply sell themselves out to the highest bidder.

But hey, hang onto that canyon for me, maybe I'll come visit.

[sangh0]

14. LOL. More Naderite delusions

1) And yes, you can have a political party uncorrupted by big business. All you have to do is simply refuse any and all corporate donations.

2) The Greens have always followed this practice, and that is one reason why they are attracting more people to their party

3) the Greens are only responsible to the people who voted and supported them

[MadHound]

17. So I suppose you also blow off your fellow Dem Kucinich as easily

As you do the Greens? After all, Kucinich takes no corporate money also. Nice going there, just alienating all kinds of potential voters.

So, do have any refutations based in fact?

[sangh0]

18. Do whatever you want

I'm not worried about the powerless Naderites and telling the truth about them won't alienate anyone besides the already alienated. Nader voters are not the best qualified people to tell Dems how to attract votes. If Naderites really knew how to attract votes, they wouldn't be such losers.

[w4rma]

20. You're the one blowing off Kucinich, MadHound.

He will be supporting the Democratic nominee as Gov. Dean has done, not Nader.

[sangh0]

22. MadHound doesn't care what DK or HD thinks

S/he only uses them when it's politically expedient. When they say something MH doesn't like, they get ignored.

[MadHound]

25. Gee, I suppose that donation I made to Kucinich,

Along with the time and sweat that I put in locally is really blowing off Kucinich. Sorry bub, that doesn't fly with me.

The reason that I'm not going with Kerry(and did go with Kucinich) is because I refuse to support the corporate corruption of either party anymore. What part of two party/same corporate master do you not understand? I learned my lesson with Clinton, another corporate whore. A president is going to dance to the tune of those who paid his way. Take a look at the big money donor lists for Clinton's campaigns, then take a look at the legislation he pushed through. Mighty beneficial to corporations there eh?

Might I suggest you go find Kevin Phillip's book "Wealth and Democracy" or go read some Jim Hightower. Perhaps you will come away with a better understanding of the Second Gilded Age that we currently live in, where party affiliation doesn't matter, just who you sold your sorry political ass to.

[sangh0]

26. Funny, but you don't mention

all the corporate money Kerry takes. Could it be because Kerry isn't Clinton?

[balanced]

31. Greens and corporate money

"The Greens have always followed this practice, and that is one reason why they are attracting more people to their party." And is that one of the reasons they can't compete. This "pie in the sky" attitude is not going to help democrats.

Does anyone care that we are in danger of losing the federal judiciary for decades to come? These federal judges are lifers. This is the long run. Many of us will be dead before democrats can influence the judiciary if we don't win this time.

Don't these green people have any sense of urgency as regards our political future, our environmental future, our future future? I would more than welcome a parliamentary system. But that will be a long time coming. 'Till then, the states control the political process, including re-districting, electoral college, constitutional amendments. And the democrats are not doing very well at the state level. Ergo, we had damn well better be able to win the presidency.

[apnu]

10. One problem with a "new party"

Is that while this new party is forming, and the "old party" is undergoing it's death throws, the GOP and neocons will have a free, undisputed run at everything! The damage they have/will cause(ed) will take decades to unravel if it unravels at all.

This is why we need to fix the current party -- today. If we split, then the neocons, IMO, will be in power for at least 10 more years while a new party is growing in support.

Just imagine 10 years of iron-clad neocon rule... forget separation of church and state, forget any kind of tax reform or campaign reform. Forget all rights for women and minorities. And, (dare I say it?), homosexuals will be herded into internment camps. We can't allow the neocons to gain one more inch!

[MadHound]

15. Ahh that old bogeyman arguement

Well first off, having gone through twenty four years of Republican rule already and emerging relatively unscathed(though there were moments), that bogeyman holds no fear for me. Yes, things would be rough if that happened, but we would survive and I seriously doubt the scenario would be as bad as what you've described. Fearmongers have said virtually the same as what you have to keep the sheep in line for years, and guess what? Nothing like what you've described has ever come to pass.

Secondly, your premise that transformation of the political parties would take years flies in the face of not only our history, but also the history of other democracies. For instance, look at the emergence of the Republicans. In a four year time span the Whigs died and the Republicans filling the vacumn vaulted into the top office. This pattern is born out in Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy and other countries. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacumn, and when one party goes down, another generally replaces it quickly.

And screw trying to fix the party. I've spent the last thirty years sweating and bleeding for the Democratic party, only to watch it drift ever rightward and further into the clutches of corporate corruption. Many of us have fought long and hard trying to fix the party from the inside, with little result. So a pox on it I say. It is better that it dies and something new and fresh arises to take its place, unsullied from the grime and dirt of corporate corruption.

[sangh0]

16. Proof that Naderites don't care about the poor

Yes, things would be rough if that happened, but we would survive and I seriously doubt the scenario would be as bad as what you've described.

Interpretation: That's their problem. I'll be fine.

Fearmongers have said virtually the same as what you have to keep the sheep in line for years, and guess what? Nothing like what you've described has ever come to pass.

Interpretation: It hasn't hurt me, so don't tell me about those poor people.

[MadHound]

23. I was waiting for you to spring that trap Sang, Thanks

Way back when, in the early eighties, there was an independent candidate known as John Anderson. He started drawing a lot of folks from the Dems, and people were panicked. They started responding much the same way that the Greens and Nader are treated today. Dire predictions of the hell on earth Reagan would cause if he came into power were rampant. Fearmongering was used as a tactic to keep Dems from going over to Anderson. Well, we all know that Reagan won in '80. And guess what, things were rough. I personally was homeless for a well over a year(some of that attributable to the economy, some to my own problems). But they weren't hell on earth, and for the most part the country made it through.

So don't speak of things you know nothing about, nor try to paint me as a rich, uncaring elitist. You know nothing of my past, nor of the donations of time and money that I make(because yes, I've been there). I am simply a caring, unpretentious working man, trying to do the best that I can, and treating others as I would wish to be treated.

So tell me Sang, how much time and money do you donate every month to various charities, oh so caring one? Or will you simply respond as always, with spin and semantics, since real answers seem to elude you.

[sangh0]

24. WHy do you depend so much on untruths

Way back when, in the early eighties...

The Repukes never controlled the White House, BOTH houses in Congress AND SCOTUS during the 80's. Only the deluded Naderitets think that the 80's were like today.

So don't speak of things you know nothing about, nor try to paint me as a rich, uncaring elitist

I said nothing about your wealth or you status. I just pointed out how your Naderism has blinded you to how politics affects the poor/

So tell me Sang, how much time and money do you donate every month to various charities, oh so caring one? Or will you simply respond as always, with spin and semantics, since real answers seem to elude you.

About $20K/year. How about you?

[sangh0]

29. What happened to you?

.

[tomorrowsashes]

36. I wish people would drop the whole green=evil thing

Seriously, if people want to support Bush, they will vote for him. The Green party is not an evil neocon conspiracy to destroy the left. It is simply a group of people disillusioned with the two party system wanting to make a lasting change, instead of a merely cosmetic one. Nader IS further left, and more for the people than Kerry. John Kerry is a corporate whore, as are 99.9% of politicians. It is simply a question of whether you are willing to compromise what your beliefs for the illusion of progress, or whether you will reject the two party system. You can be mad at Nader for taking votes from Gore, but calling him a conservative idiot is simply ludicrous. It is employing the neocon ideology that a person is either good or bad, with you or against you. It is indicative of why the democratic party must be changed or eliminated.

I am not a Green, Democrat, or of any other political party. The Greens, while strong in some areas are still just reformists. Nader has stated that he think the World Bank and WTO need to be restructured. In truth, it needs to be destroyed. The Democratic party sold it's soul decades ago. In truth, any party will fall in to corruption, and the electoral system will be the death of them. Regardless of my problems with the Greens, I have decided that Nader is the best candidate, but I have not fallen into the trap of convincing myself that any lasting change can be brought about through the ballot box. Representative democracy is an oxymoron, and a sham. Nader is as far as I'm willing to compromise.

[apnu]

27. I disagree...

Uh... I think you need to study the history of the Democratic party and the Republican party a bit more. There's a clear pole shift with the Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War. People forget that the Democrats USED to be the Republican party of today. A decrepit, corrupt beast of mind-boggling size. And when those corrupt Democrats switched parties because the name Democrat was poison come election time they high-jacked the Republican party and tossed out the liberals. Who had no where to go, and so they switched to the Democratic party. You have to read both parties histories side by side to see this.

You said this: ...Democratic party, only to watch it drift ever rightward and further into the clutches of corporate corruption.

I'm not nearly as old as you are, my first election allowed me the honor of voting for Clinton to his first term in office, so I don't honestly know about a rightward shift over thirty years, but....

If it's true that the Democrats only serve corporate masters, and lets say 1/3 of the Democrats split off and from a new party (or fill up the Green party) then you have an overwhelming majority loyal to the corporate beast. And while the Greens (or new party) is growing in power, that majority will change everything in their power to make life better for the corporate monster.

It is and isn't a boogey man argument, but perhaps I wasn't clear when I mentioned neocons. It's the neocons that have to be stopped today, they've hijacked the 'pugs and are running amok! You say "thirty years" but the neocon power thing is only a recent occurrence. They've just come to absolute power, and unless they are taken down a notch then they will rip us to shreds. The bogeyman is the neocon, the 'pugs you are talking about from the 1970's are a different animal all together.

People like to compare * to Nixon, especially with all this 9/11 commission stuff, but do you honestly think that * will give us a Checkers speech? No he won't. They won't let him. They'll hang on to power for as long as they can get it.

It's a lesser of two evils, and we all hate that, but what is this coming election really about? Choice for liberals who are disaffected with the Democratic party or getting the neocon Neanderthals out of power?

I'd love to introduce some serious progressive reforms to our government, but that will never happen when extremists are in power. Our government must achieve balance before we can attain progress. All the progressive ideals we hold so dear are put on hold when Chimpy is crapping all over the White House. There's a saying in AA (I've done my time there) which says "First things first" Its more important to toss * (who is more of an affront to Naderites than Kerry is) than it is to go for the big change you so desire. Expecting Nader to win or any other big progressive change in 2004 is biting off way more than we can chew, and it won't happen in the current political climate that exists at this exact point in time. Tomorrow, maybe, but not today.

I ask all Naderites here, how will you feel if * gets 4 more years?

[balanced]

32. Wow

"It is better that it dies and something new and fresh arises to take its place, unsullied from the grime and dirt of corporate corruption."

Couldn't happen in 10 to the 4th years. If Bush gets in again and the Congress stays approximately the same and the political makeup of the states remains approximately the same, there could be a lot of damage to foreign policy, environmental law, civil rights, and the right to choose--not to mention a lot of other areas. Apparently, you don't share the idea that Bush would be a disaster, especially if Congress and the states are solid republican. I wish I had your .... whatever it is.

The Arizona land is cheap--only 1.25 per acre.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. I can see how he could do that in states where Kerry won't campaign...

He could work to get Bush voters to see the light and come over to the left since Kerry won't bother to do this. But in important swing states OHIO OHIO OHIO NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW HAMPSHIRE FLORIDA FLORIDA FLORIDA he does much more harm than good.

[apnu]

30. yes....

... to quote the firebrand Randi Rhodes "Ralph! we don't need you right now!"

[John_H]

33. Another lie: just like he told his supporters he would pull out of

swing states in 2K.
When will folks figure out that Nader has NO support among progressives aside from the usual people-self absorbed barely post-pubescent one-percenters? His campaign is funded by GOP money, encouraged by the GOP and probably assisted by the GOP.

[corporatewhore]

35. The nader coordinator in austinn,who is also my friend and bill of rights

activist says this some of the libertarians and oldschool conservatives who worked with us lefties for the Anti patriot act resolution are helping her with nader campaign because he appeals to libertarians/oldschool who dont like the war globalization patriot act or FMA (one libertarian told me he has more of a problem w/ men fucking w/ the constitution than with two men fucking)