The Nader Effect

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Demoman, Oct 8, 2006.

  1. Demoman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Location:
    Issaquah, WA
    #1
    Ralph Nader has given GeeDub the keys to the White House twice. His votes would have definitely gone to the democratic candidate and would have easily won the election for them. I have often wondered why Nader does this.

    Yes, I have listened to his 'official' reasoning. His main points were (interpreted by me):

    • "Both parties are equally to blame and a new party is our only hope."
    • "We cannot win this election, but we can get enough votes for federal campaign money"

    Now, this sounded real good to the young university crowd he was speaking to, but I found some serious logic flaws in it.

    Nader is promoting an environmental agenda. Great, we sure need one. But, how can anyone, who cares about the environment, turn the full weight of the republican-corporate rapers-military industrial complex loose on it? In less than six years, over three decades of environmental progress has been completely erased. What were you thinking, Ralph?

    Nader's claim, that the democratic party also has issues, is like saying it rains in Seattle. Is that a reason to put GeeDub in power? If you are really sincere about starting a movement, which can spawn a vital political party, it has to start at the grassroots.

    It must start with wining local elections, state legistatures seats, and then congressional positions. Maybe then you can look to the presidency. So, this entire dog and pony show just looked too convenient for GeeDub. Nader comes out of (seemingly) nowhere at election time. He makes a lot of passionate speechs to young, idealogical groups. He captures the young liberal vote. Game, set, match...

    So, why would Ralph do this? I thought back to when I was in college. My degree is in Poly Sci. A friend, was working on his thesis about the growing influence of advocacy groups compared to classical lobbying. Nader's work in consumer work was often mentioned, and discussed amongst he and I. We both felt Nader was egocentric, often engaged in self-aggrandizement, but was effective (for mainly those reasons). But, would he put someone like GeeDub in power for his own ego? I could not imagine someone with a clear conscience doing that.

    Regardless of what led him to hand over the first election, I was absolutely shocked when he did it again four years later. By then, it was obvious what was happening to environmental management. Every federal agency had been given the green-flag to drop protection and accommodate corporate America. There is no way Ralph could not see what role he played in the GeeDub rape of the environment. Yet, he did the same exact thing, even though virtually every democratic-liberal person of influence tried to dissuade him. He did know.

    The only thing that makes sense to me is, Ralph did not, and probably does not, have a choice in the matter. I suspect someone on the bad side has the goods on Ralph. There have been many rumors in the past. Who knows?

    If we are going to win back this country, we do not have a lot of time left. The traditional conservatives were generally people of principal. The new right is really a scary group. They will have had 8 years to dig-in deep. They will be hard to erradicate. Should we give them another 4 years? I do not think so. Ralph Nader must not be allowed to come out of mothballs and divide the liberal/moderate voters. Many of you are in college. Consider this when Ralph comes knocking.
     
  2. mdntcallr macrumors 65816

    mdntcallr

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2000
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #2
    nader doesnt care about who wins in the end.

    he just wants to further his own party.

    if he didnt run, democrats would have a better chance.
     
  3. plinkoman macrumors 65816

    plinkoman

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #3
    like so many other politicians... he can't see past his own career...

    he preaches all this lesser of two evils crap; well, ok fine, give me the lesser of two evil, instead of taking precious votes away from him in a futile attempt to gain national funding for the green party or whatever he claims to do.

    if it weren't for that prick, we'd have had gore these past 6 years, and wow, would we be in a better place today for it.
     
  4. thedude110 macrumors 68020

    thedude110

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    #4
    Or Gore could've run a bit more to the left. :rolleyes:

    The start of this thread, from about a week ago, seems to capture the general mood of our political forum: All politicians are corrupt, but rather than uniting behind a candidate who represents "actual change," we'd rather support the "lesser of two evils."

    Look. I voted Nader in 2000 and I don't regret it. It was a protest vote in a time of peace and general prosperity. If ever there was a time to attempt to establish a viable American third party, that seemed like the time (to me and to many others in my generation).

    And, you know, I'd be careful who I called a "prick." I'm fairly certain Nader's done more good for his country than have 99% of the members of this forum. He's not only been at the forefront of the Consumer Right's movement, but he's been integral to the foundation of both the EPA and OSHA (link). And that's the tip of the iceberg.

    The fact is we should have someone like Ralph Nader representing us, but we don't seem to have the courage to elect candidates who mean to enact significant change.
     
  5. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #5
    If he had not run, Al Gore would have won...and the world would be a different place...Nader Nader Nader...(his effect on the 2004 elections was less, in 2000 he really stole a key state away from Gore, by take the votes that Gore needed to win)
     
  6. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #6
    hindsight is 20/20.
    what we have is today. and hopefully tomorrow. lets hope for a better tomorrow.
     
  7. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #7
    I wasn't old enough to vote in 2000, but in 2004, I wanted Nader to win. Between him, Kerry and dumbass in chief, he was the one I agreed with the most. He'd get us out of Iraq, he'd actually give a crap about the American people, etc. But I still voted for Kerry, because I knew that it would be a close race and every vote would count, and I'd rather would've had Kerry than Bush. Perhaps it's people like me who are the reason 3rd parties don't win, because we know they don't stand a snowman's chance in hell and would rather not piss our vote away in an important race, but until millions of independents can change, vote for the 3rd party and give them a chance, I'm not wasting my vote. Maybe in a future election when the democratic candidate has a huge lead in polls on election day, I'll vote for a 3rd party candidate to help give them enough votes for federal funding, but when its as close as it was in 2004, then I'll vote democrat
     
  8. plinkoman macrumors 65816

    plinkoman

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #8
    voting for someone who has no chance is pointless, and just led to bush being elected. I completely agree about the whole lesser of two evils thing, but I would much rather vote for the lesser of two evils than vote for someone who doesn't stand a chance allowing the greater of two evils to win. it'd be great to have someone who wasn't corrupt in the first place, but the way things are set up right now, there's about a 0.0000001% chance of that happening.

    don't get me wrong, I like nader for what he has done, and I think he could have made a great president, but I call him a prick because he knew he wouldn't actually win, and all he would end up doing is taking votes away from someone who wouldn't **** us over quite so bad.

    you have to work in the system to change the system; and right now, the system is based on two parties. It sucks, but thats the way it is.
     
  9. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #9
    BS

    If Gore wanted Nader's votes he should've run more to the left, instead he ran a centrist campaign dictated by highly-paid consultants that couldn't keep the president's party in power during a time of unprecedented peace and prosperity. What's ironic is that Gore's green-credentials were great, he just chose to ignore them in order to appeal to the ********s who elected Bush.

    If Nader hadn't run then yes, Gore would be president, but he wouldn't have had the strentgh of conviction or strength of legitimacy that he could have today.

    I have to think that in the end the left will revolt and finally get the current ****tards out of office. Of course, that would require the "left-leaning" party to actually act like one. They can't rely on the lefties to vote for them if they're not going to run on a leftist platform.

    Look at how the Republiphiles did it, they ran races while pandering to the xenophobic, homophobic, "christ-centered" base. Why shouldn't I expect the Defeatocrats to pander to my earth-saving, equal-rights believing, civil-liberties loving self?
     
  10. plinkoman macrumors 65816

    plinkoman

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #10
    i'm really getting sick of this crap. nader's idealism is great in theory, but it accomplished nothing; nothing except stick us with this joke of a president. no one I know is saying gore was perfect, but this "not left enough" talk is bs. If he ran as left as you wish he would have, do you really think he would have had a shot at winning?

    we could have had these past 6 years without this pathetic administration. Nader knew he would never win; he even admitted that he was just trying to get enough votes for funding. He knew he wouldn't win, and he knew he would take votes away from gore, but he did it anyway, and thanks in part to his short-sightedness; we didn't get nader or gore; we got george bush. I hope all you people who voted for nader are happy; you basically voted for bush... :rolleyes:

    I'm beginning to remember why I stopped debating politics on online forums years ago... we're never going to agree with each other, so what's the point...
     
  11. DZ/015 macrumors 6502a

    DZ/015

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Location:
    New England
    #11
    Dear me, this is the first realistic post anyone has made here in a long time.
     
  12. thedude110 macrumors 68020

    thedude110

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    #12
    I'm thrilled you know that running to the left would have cost Gore more votes than it would have gained him.

    Actually, I (and most of "you people") basically voted for Nader. Gore won my state and the popular vote without me, so I don't see how my vote is equated to a vote for Bush. Seems to me like nothing less than a divisive cliche designed to guilt people into the roles they're "supposed" to be assuming.
     
  13. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #13
    I didn't vote for Gore, am I at fault? :p (Too young in 2000)

    I didn't vote for Kerry in 2004, am I at fault? I also didn't vote for Bush either. ;)
     
  14. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #14
    it accomplishes nothing? tell that to anyone whose life has been saved by a seatbelt in a car.

    if gore had the vigor and tenacity in 2000 that he seems to have now, i absolutely think he would've won. or at least he wouldn't have backed down when the florida fraud was going down.
     
  15. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #15
    as michael moore wrote (back when he had more of a spine), the republicans tell us they're going to screw us, and then do. the democrats pretend they aren't going to screw us, but they do.
     

Share This Page