[SerycegeBunny]

[phernikas]

I wish he'd just **** off and die already. Still, I'd rather vote for him then Hillary. Hell, I'd vote for just about anyone before Hillary.

[Allorneadesee]

Wait wait, that is just lifted from the Onion, correct?

Nader just has to be a GOP agent, there's no other way to explain it...

[AgindyMinnife]

I don't see why the Dems blame Nader for anything. He's running because he doesn't like either candidate. If people support him over the Dems, that's the Dems' problem... they don't automatically get the vote of every left-of-center voter just by saying it is so

The Libertarians nearly always put out a candidate, and they're in the same position vs the Republicans as Nader is to the Dems. Yet the Repubs don't whine about it...

[unioneserry]

Originally posted by Admiral
So, while Nader can do as he like, and few people will vote for him who would otherwise vote for a Democrat, he should take stock of the changed political landscape, and go do something that isn't pointless. I don't think it's pointless at all. You don't have to win the presidency to be a leader. It's nice if you have a leader in the presidency, but if you don't you have to do with what you have. Hillary is definitely the old status quo (pro-corporation, pro-special interests). And I think that Nader would take more votes from her than Obama, so I think Obama looks good with Nader running. And this is one more reason not to vote for Clinton.

[JennaJJxoxoxo]

Gore lost because...

"On January 6, 2001, a joint-session of Congress met to certify the electoral vote. Twenty members of the House of Representatives, most of them Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus, rose one-by-one to file objections to the electoral votes of Florida. However, according to an 1877 law, any such objection had to be sponsored by both a representative and a senator. No senator would co-sponsor these objections, deferring to the Supreme Court's ruling. Therefore, Gore, who was presiding in his capacity as President of the Senate, ruled each of these objections out of order."

... he's a jackass.

[ValdisSeroff]

I think they've got it backwards. Nader sensed that, in potentially pitting an untried junior senator against a veteran politician/war hero, the Dems are en route to losing yet another race that should have been unloseable. So, to spare them the existential shock, he's generously inserting himself in the race as a scapegoat. They'll have him and his five supporters in Vermont and California to blame for costing them the White House.

[werkeeque]

IMHO, Nader is not running for President in order to run for President. Rather, he's declared for that office in order to get some coverage of his issues from the mainstream media, who ignore him when he's not running for President.

[Khurlxgq]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Soon they will ignore him while he is runing for president. If he really wants to get noticed by the media, he should date Brittany Spears.

[Heaneisismich]

If, after the 2000 debacle, there's a person left in the US who's thinking, "well, I was going to vote for the Democratic candidate, because I really want to get the GOP out of power -- but now I'm voting for Nader," I want to meet that person. And I want to slap that person, non-stop, from now until Election Day.

Luckily, I don't think that person exists. This time around, Nader will draw votes away from whoever Che's candidate is, thus acting as a spoiler and again denying the Socialist Party their shot at governing.

[VQdeochratis]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do the Dems automatically have a claim on every vote left of center? ...every vote left of DD.

[Xxedxevh]

'Cause I wanna win for a change.

[priceyicey]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
'Cause I wanna win for a change. Become a Republican then.

PS This is the second board I've asked this question on and gotten a similar response. Is it something about the way I'm asking it that attracts the stupid answers?

[xanaxist]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Become a Republican then.

PS This is the second board I've asked this question on and gotten a similar response. Is it something about the way I'm asking it that attracts the stupid answers? No, it's you.

[Laqswrnm]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


No, they just have a claim on every vote that prioritizes defeating the GOP. And perhaps some people prioritize voting for the candidate they prefer, rather than voting against a candidate or party.

[Cengaeas]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Become a Republican then.

PS This is the second board I've asked this question on and gotten a similar response. Is it something about the way I'm asking it that attracts the stupid answers? Nope. The stupidy is all mine!

[chuecafressds]

That's not really a reason for them to vote for the Democrats though.

[Imalaycle]

Nader got half a percent of the vote in '04. Kerry has nowhere close to the appeal that Obama or Clinton have among Dems. Frankly, I'd be a lot more worried about third party candidates if I were Republican...

[Glanteeignile]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


I'm sure they do. I don't care about them. I care about the idiots who've spent the last 7 years taking to the streets over every single GOP policy, but would now throw their vote away on Nader rather than voting to show the GOP the door, just because they want to preserve their sacred ideological virginity. There's nothing worse than people who spend all their time yammering about politics but lack the cajones to actually get dirty playing the game. QFMFT

[Yb4bulVR]

Back room deal. After the election McCain makes Nader his VP.