Will Nader Drop Out?
- Thread starter pawcatch
- Start date
No.
If he bails out now, the Green Party will be hamstringed for a couple of elections (see Reform Party 1992 to now). If he can lock down a certain percentage of votes, the Green Party will be a serious contender in the next election.
And Nader wants to save poor li'l us from ourselves too much to back down now.
LawDog
If he bails out now, the Green Party will be hamstringed for a couple of elections (see Reform Party 1992 to now). If he can lock down a certain percentage of votes, the Green Party will be a serious contender in the next election.
And Nader wants to save poor li'l us from ourselves too much to back down now.
LawDog
I think the fact that this question was raised shows that someone has done their homework (Republicans??). If Nader does drop out, the first thing said will be that it was because Bore v.12 needed votes. At least that what Fox will say ( I'm waiting for them to cut our throats).
------------------
DUM SPIRO SPERO
While I Breath I Hope
------------------
DUM SPIRO SPERO
While I Breath I Hope
MrBigglesworth
New member
He wont!
Read on CNN that Nader is intent on staying in the race even if it assures a Bush Victory. He is not going to be pressued by the Demos, even though they are getting in a tiffy!
------------------
Try to take away my gun...and you will see my 2nd Amendment Right in ACTION!!! -Me
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson
Read on CNN that Nader is intent on staying in the race even if it assures a Bush Victory. He is not going to be pressued by the Demos, even though they are getting in a tiffy!
------------------
Try to take away my gun...and you will see my 2nd Amendment Right in ACTION!!! -Me
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson
Dear God, I don't ask for much, but let this be true.
It's about time the Dems got a little "Perot-ing" of their own.
------------------
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!
It's about time the Dems got a little "Perot-ing" of their own.
------------------
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!
No matter what Nader does, there will still be a Green Party of some sort after the elections. There are just too many people just too burned out on the Democratic Party for it too be any other way. It's the same phenomina that the Republicans now have with constant threats of defection to the Reform and Libertarian parties, only the Democrats face these potentially crippling threats to their left. I don't see this changing any time in the near future.
The Democrats are now telling people who are potential Nader voters that G.W.B. is Satan himself and that they should vote for Gore (lesser of two evils) in the key battle ground states but vote for whomever they like best in states already conceded to Bush.
The trouble with this is that this includes states on the West Coast like California, Washington and Oregon were the Greens are the strongest in both organization and popular support. If Nader did this, he would be cutting his own party's throat in its best bases.
Even if he tried, its unlikely that the local Greens would switch over to being Gore supportors on election day. It would be a terrible thing for their party internally and most likely the majority would not swicth over to Gore and would in reality just not vote at all in the presidential race if Nader could somehow take himself off the ballot. In any case, its too late to toss the Greens off the ballot, so the Democrats cannot stop them from voting for their party in any case. Perhaps only a small percentage of them would switch to Gore if Nader himself told them too, but maybe that is all the Democrats want anyway.
I don't think Nader will do this.
The Democrats are now telling people who are potential Nader voters that G.W.B. is Satan himself and that they should vote for Gore (lesser of two evils) in the key battle ground states but vote for whomever they like best in states already conceded to Bush.
The trouble with this is that this includes states on the West Coast like California, Washington and Oregon were the Greens are the strongest in both organization and popular support. If Nader did this, he would be cutting his own party's throat in its best bases.
Even if he tried, its unlikely that the local Greens would switch over to being Gore supportors on election day. It would be a terrible thing for their party internally and most likely the majority would not swicth over to Gore and would in reality just not vote at all in the presidential race if Nader could somehow take himself off the ballot. In any case, its too late to toss the Greens off the ballot, so the Democrats cannot stop them from voting for their party in any case. Perhaps only a small percentage of them would switch to Gore if Nader himself told them too, but maybe that is all the Democrats want anyway.
I don't think Nader will do this.
Saw Nader on the news yesterday answering this question. He said he's in for good and judging from his body language and tone of voice he sure sounded like he was going to take every vote he could get his hands on. News tonight said both Bush and Gore plan to campaign away from undecideds (?who are these people?) and shore up the base of their respective parties. Sounds good to me since all the major polls have W ahead. Keep your fingers crossed and think good thoughts.
Sub
Sub
Nader is the stubbornest SOB in politics today, with the possible exception of Buchanan.
Nader will stay the course. Thank God. Now if we could only make Buchanan go away. Has anybody seen how he's been spending that $12mil in California? What the hell does he think he's doing? He appears to be trying desperately for the "bedsheets and burnt crosses" vote. It really ain't pretty.
"Politics of divisiveness" is generally a bad idea, Prop187 proved that. California's conservatives really blew it there, we screwed ourselves on the Latino vote which *should* be generally conservative. Probably cost us control of the Assembly.
Buchanan is a lunatic. At least he isn't managing to make Bush look bad.
Jim
Nader will stay the course. Thank God. Now if we could only make Buchanan go away. Has anybody seen how he's been spending that $12mil in California? What the hell does he think he's doing? He appears to be trying desperately for the "bedsheets and burnt crosses" vote. It really ain't pretty.
"Politics of divisiveness" is generally a bad idea, Prop187 proved that. California's conservatives really blew it there, we screwed ourselves on the Latino vote which *should* be generally conservative. Probably cost us control of the Assembly.
Buchanan is a lunatic. At least he isn't managing to make Bush look bad.
Jim
He'll stay in.
Five per cent of the popular vote gets the
Green Party federal funding for 2004.
Keep an eye on the Greens. They represent a
worldwide political movement. Have a significant amount of clout in Europe.
Heavy support in Germany...not to mention
backing of the United Nations. Remember the
Kyoto Treaty back in ther mid-nineties?
That was a Green move to legitimize its
philosophy. It worked. Our Senate refused
to sign on, but Mr. Gore backed it.
Among other things, it names the good 'ol
US of A the world's number one polluter.
At the same time, it gives Russia, Red China,
all of Africa, India, South America, etc.
non polluter status. If we get caught up in
this mess, our industries will be forced to
buy pollution credits from the above mentioned
countries to meet international standards.
As of now, about 120 nations have signed onto
Kyoto.They see us as a cash cow; and they
will have the clout to make us play the game
by their rules.
Don't for a moment believe the Green Party
is about hugging trees. Its a whole lot
more than that.
[This message has been edited by Sport (edited October 30, 2000).]
Five per cent of the popular vote gets the
Green Party federal funding for 2004.
Keep an eye on the Greens. They represent a
worldwide political movement. Have a significant amount of clout in Europe.
Heavy support in Germany...not to mention
backing of the United Nations. Remember the
Kyoto Treaty back in ther mid-nineties?
That was a Green move to legitimize its
philosophy. It worked. Our Senate refused
to sign on, but Mr. Gore backed it.
Among other things, it names the good 'ol
US of A the world's number one polluter.
At the same time, it gives Russia, Red China,
all of Africa, India, South America, etc.
non polluter status. If we get caught up in
this mess, our industries will be forced to
buy pollution credits from the above mentioned
countries to meet international standards.
As of now, about 120 nations have signed onto
Kyoto.They see us as a cash cow; and they
will have the clout to make us play the game
by their rules.
Don't for a moment believe the Green Party
is about hugging trees. Its a whole lot
more than that.
[This message has been edited by Sport (edited October 30, 2000).]
The big parties absorb whatever ideologies let them win.
If the green thing became THAT important the dems would go hard green. For now, they can't - not every Democrat is an enviro-wacko.
It's the reason Bush is actually pushing for MORE socialism. There just isn't enough of a vote out there for someone who doesn't support socialist medicine to win an election.
Funny thing is, though, if Nader can PERMANENTLY split the socialists in half, then repubs can win with a bit over 1/3 of the vote, even if they move back toward freedom.
What's good for Nader is good for us
Battler.
[This message has been edited by Battler (edited October 30, 2000).]
If the green thing became THAT important the dems would go hard green. For now, they can't - not every Democrat is an enviro-wacko.
It's the reason Bush is actually pushing for MORE socialism. There just isn't enough of a vote out there for someone who doesn't support socialist medicine to win an election.
Funny thing is, though, if Nader can PERMANENTLY split the socialists in half, then repubs can win with a bit over 1/3 of the vote, even if they move back toward freedom.
What's good for Nader is good for us
Battler.
[This message has been edited by Battler (edited October 30, 2000).]
The chances that a committed Green (a good idea?) voting Gore are slim, IMHO. They are idealogues and zealots by temperment, and I think most would stay home before voting Dem. In fact, I think many, if not most, of Nader's supporters/voters wouldn't bother to vote at all if he weren't in the race.
Watching Nader on Hardball tonight, i just heard him say that Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were his "mentors". Does Nader even know what he's saying? He is quite possible the direct opposite of the two...
Further, watching Nader on C-Span (re-cast from tuesday night) he said, "I'm trying to make sure you'll never have to worry about those problems [welfare, abortion, civil rights, 'the police state supported by W.'] again." What happen to, "the tree of liberty will need to be fertilized from time to time with the blood of patriots"??
We are going to be in serious trouble if Nader succeeds in his plans.
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
Further, watching Nader on C-Span (re-cast from tuesday night) he said, "I'm trying to make sure you'll never have to worry about those problems [welfare, abortion, civil rights, 'the police state supported by W.'] again." What happen to, "the tree of liberty will need to be fertilized from time to time with the blood of patriots"??
We are going to be in serious trouble if Nader succeeds in his plans.
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
Pinkos can take someone's words of "liberty" and make them mean something else.
For example, Bill Bradley referred to it as preserving the "liberty" of little kids by redistributing wealth. We know that the govt taking your money is bad; but that's how they play it.
Nader may well be able to convince himself that the founding fathers were really "progressives" or "socialists" who just couldn't implement all the happy-happy-joy because the time was not yet right but worked for hte day when we could all be "free" property of the state.
Battler.
For example, Bill Bradley referred to it as preserving the "liberty" of little kids by redistributing wealth. We know that the govt taking your money is bad; but that's how they play it.
Nader may well be able to convince himself that the founding fathers were really "progressives" or "socialists" who just couldn't implement all the happy-happy-joy because the time was not yet right but worked for hte day when we could all be "free" property of the state.
Battler.