March 09, 2004

• "We"? [rhetorically]
• what can we do to avoid a 2000 disaster? I'll help, if someone gets me American citizenship, and a vote.
• Use Voodoo to summon a Zombie Lee Harvey Oswald to pop Nader in the skull....
• Um, right, , sorry about that . We = "people who care about who the next United States president is"
• of course all of his support comes at the expense of Kerry Not true! I'm registered Republican, and if Nader is on the ballot in Illinois, I'll vote for him... again! So Bush loses one vote, at least. I'm an atypical conservative in these trying times, though. That said. I don't think Nader will make a whit of difference in this election, any more than he did in the last. There's a lot more registered voters out there who didn't vote at all than those who did, so these elections are not even remotely zero-sum games. Nader makes a convenient scapegoat, but as far as actually affecting an election? Not so much. Kerry will actually have to go out an campaign on a platform of change that resonates with the American people, instead of waiting, like Gore did, for the votes to simply roll in.
• (THIS COMMENT IS POINTLESS) From this thread: 30 Monkeys live in the USA 3 Monkeys live in New Zealand 3 Monkeys live in Australia 1 Monkey lives in Japan 1 Monkey lives in Singapore 1 Monkey lives in India 6 Monkeys live in Britain 2 Monkeys live in Ireland 5 Monkeys live in Canada 1 Monkey lives in Sweden 2 Monkeys live in Mexico So I'd say about half the members here live somewhere other than America. The internet might be American, but monkeyfilter isn't. Well, not completely. (SORRY)
• Even some of us living in the States aren't American - though our lives are certainly changed by who is president. This whole one seat takes all (including most of the civil servant jobs too) approach to government doesn't seem to be working out well - will the US ever go to a Parliamentary based system? Dng, I was going to try to map that thread, but got distracted - so much for trying to beat the statistics master at his own game : ) I don't think response was very high though - I think there are many who didn't answer, especially outside North American time zones. But I'm curious - How did you count people who reported multiple residences? By their origin, or by their current?
• By their current. (I also cheated and added tracicle to the total). Turnout wasn't very high though - 60 people from 600. Maybe we are American after all...
• well, unfortunately, being american is not the only criterion for concern re the coming election. like it or not, the leadership (or lack thereof) of the usa affects the entire world. I have spoken with plenty of people from other nations who are as concerned with the outcome as I, because they know that us policy affects everyone...
• I'm just curious. Why in the world would a registered Republican talk about supporting Nader? Which of his positions resonates with you? I'm not saying this is the case here, but there are many Republicans disingenuously talking up Nader right now in hopes of taking votes from Kerry.
• Look, I've said this before and I'll say this again. It's oversimplistic to blame Nader for the outcome of the 2000 election. Let's look at other factors that came into play: - Seven million democrats voted for Bush - Gore ran a horrible campaign, refusing help from a still popular Bill Clinton and looking childish and stupid during the debates (the man lost his own state!) - Terrible ballot design in Florida (the margin of victory was 537 votes) - The Supreme Court got mixed up in the action Did Nader play a roll? You bet your mother's twinkies. Was it his fault that Bush is in the White House? No. Times are completely different now. There are different factors, different motivations, and different priorities. I personally think Nader is not an issue this time around, or at the very least not something to really worry about.
• Nader still has to get on the state ballots and that cost money. Now he doesn't even a party behind him to help raised the money to do that task. This is another reason I think Nader is doing it for his ego. There's also this: WASHINGTON
• I'm just curious. Why in the world would a registered Republican talk about supporting Nader? Which of his positions resonates with you? Oh! Sorry. None of them, really - I disagree with just about everything the man stands for. I voted for him in 2000 because I was sick of him getting the high hat from Gore and Bush, the casual dismissiveness they handed him, the callous fashion in which they kept him out of the debate and marginalized him. I wanted to see him get the 5% of votes needed to acquire matching funds, so that they would have had to take him seriously as a candidate. My belief is that everyone should have a voice and that any serious candidate, not just someone from the two "approved" parties, should have a chance to state their case to the American people and stand for office. So he got my vote. This time, as before, neither of the two approved candidates appeals to me. So rather than just cast a vote for the lesser of two evils, I'll cast it again for Nader, for the same reasons. If Nader's not on the ballot in my state, I'll likely either go with Harry Browne (again, same sort of princple), some other third party candidate, or abstain. As for being a registered Republican, in the township where I vote you have be either registered as Republican or Democrat to vote in the primaries, you can't declare for Independant. Since I vote more often for Republican candidates (for local offices, primarily, about 60/40) than Democratic ones, I registered Republican.
• So, basically, I "throw away" my vote in nearly every presidential election, since I voted for Clinton in 1992.
• make that "ever since I voted for Clinton in 1992." I don't regret that vote.
• Times are completely different now. 3%. As of yesterday. 3%.
• what can we do to avoid a 2000 disaster? Here's how Dems can win the Green/Nader vote: Stop expecting the progressive/leftist faction of the Democratic Party to vote in a knee-jerk fashion for the nominee. Don't take us for granted. Quit trying to appeal to our senses of fear (supreme court appontments) or guilt ("you're wasting your vote, and helping Bush"). Quit nominating people who can't campaign their way out of a wet paper bag. Most importantly: I understand that centrist stances get Presidents elected, but throw the liberals/leftists a couple of substantive bones with your policy proposals. The best way to defuse Nader is to make him irrelevant by subverting his base. And if the Democrats can't understand this, they have no business whining when liberals and leftists cast their ballot elsewhere. I've been a registered Green for years, but I'm looking for a reason to cast a vote for Kerry this time around *. The Democratic Party will get my vote, and the votes of a bunch of other people with politics similar to mine, if they actively reach out to us. And if they don't, they won't. * Please don't take this as a reason to deluge me with information on the Kerry campaign; I'm already familiar with his positions and am following his campaign very closely. Furthermore, don't get all indignant and presume to remind me of what's at stake in November. I'm very well informed, and the fact that a diehard Green like myself is even considering voting for a mainstream Dem should tell you something.
• Washington state has (or had, I should say - there are changes afoot) a blanket primary, so I'm not registered here as anything other than a voter. However, the GOP seems to consider me theirs, thanks to a couple of campaign donations I made a few years ago. (Give in haste, repent at leisure.) Certainly, Nader's positions have zero resonance with me. So why would I ever vote Nader? I cannot vote for Bush after his endorsement of a FMA. (Thoughtfully, the GOP regularly sends me postage-paid envelopes, allowing me to make my point for the price of a little ink. While I only get one vote this November, I have a seemingly lifetime supply of those envelopes.) I don't have a strong enough stomach to vote for Kerry. Like Fes, I voted for Clinton in 1992. Unlike Fes, I came to regret that choice. I have no idea who the wacky Libertarians (my nominal affiliation) will run. Without a nomination yet, the Libs can't appear on name-recognition polls like the Wash Post's ("Would you vote for Bush, Kerry, Nader, or Britney?"). That leaves me with Nader. I can vote for him as a vote for non-D, non-R, third-party politics in general. Since I have no fear of his actually becoming President, I can effectively use him as a proxy Libertarian.
• Jugger: Out of curiosity, why do you think Nader is a threat?
• Um, vote for Bush?
• Does anyone see a potential for super-energized Dean and/or Kucinich supporters having a "Nader factor"? I keep seeing all this talk about a united Democratic party, but these 2 are still drawing votes. Even if they only constitute 1% of the vote, they may screw us all again for another 4 years make up for the loss of Nader's popularity.
• Even if they only constitute 1% of the vote, they may screw us all again for another 4 years make up for the loss of Nader's popularity. I wonder where would Nader go from there if he gave Bush Florida and New Hampshire again. Has he even thought about that? He got nothing from 2000. The Greens have even turned on him.
• While I can't speak for all Dean supporters, I am well acquainted with several who were gung-ho in the campaign and I don't get the impression that they're all ready to go jump on the Nader bandwagon.
• Jugger: Out of curiosity, why do you think Nader is a threat? Because he causes us (us = opponets of the current Executive Branch of the U.S. Government) to lose focus. I think Nader is a threat because despite all of the other things wrong with the Democratic offering in 2000, if Nader spent the Summer and Fall of that year on vacation, Bush would not have been President. Same thing is true for Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. Ross Perot got Republicans to lose focus. The great thing about the primaries this year was the intense focus of Democratic voters: Kick Bush Out. Focus.
• Wielding partisan politics like the sword of damocles insures that we get fed from one of two plates, both of them owned by multi-millionaires. I'm pro-Kerry but I did vote Nader in the last election as Gore struck me as a sad alternative. This year I'll vote Kerry but I see no danger in Nader running. That "Focus" is clearly already in place. Let's see a three man debate, maybe it'll introduce some dangerous topics. Doing things the same old way is what got us into the mess we're currently in, not Nader.
• He got nothing from 2000. The Greens have even turned on him. Or, more accurately, Nader has turned on the Greens.
• Nader and the Greens were a marriage of convenience in 2000, and for most of the lefties I know, that marriage was annulled by Bush getting into office. They, or we, really didn't think about how bad the Bushies were going to be. My only defense is that I voted in Nebraska, where getting to 5% wouldn't have threatened anyone. Three years of W later, I'm prepared to swallow a lot of crow and vote for the Dem. Kerry is a strong finisher, has a chance unless the Reps literally rig the election, and won't be anywhere near as bad as Bush. Nader can kiss my white heine.
• Right-wing groups -- and Bush-Cheney '04 -- may have violated federal campaign law to help get Ralph Nader on the ballot in Oregon.
• didn't i see an article yesterday about the Green party rejecting Nader's running mate and therefore eliminating Nader from the ballot in a certain number of states?