Support NeoGAF

[Triumph]

<3 Nader <3

If he can get on the ballot, I will vote for him. If he can't I won't make a point to write him in unless Hillary is the nominee on the dem side.

 

[Absinthe (Permed)]

I'd vote for him over anyone else that is currently running.

 

[Wraith]

Wonderful, another chance for Nader to blow it for a perfectly good Democratic candidate. What a fucking joke.

 

[Zeed]

How exactly does he intend to raise $10 million? He's no Ron Paul.

 

[terrene]

Nader said he finds Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both unacceptable candidates, and he said whichever wins the party's presidential nomination will not have an impact on his decision to run.

"They are both enthralled to the corporate powers," Nader said of the two leading Democrats. "They've completely ignored the presidential pattern of illegality and accountability, they've ignored the out of control waste-fruad military expenditures, they hardly ever mention the diversion of hundreds of billions of dollars to corporate subsidies, handouts, and giveaways, and they don't talk about a living wage."

He expressed particular disappointment with Obama, whose senate record he called "mediocre, and quite cautious."

Obama is "enthralled to corporate powers?" What a tool. I think you can count on this guy making a minimal impact. Nader garnered a lot of votes in 2000 where two candidates were struggling to get the center and sounded far too alike. The difference between Obama and McCain could not be more clear.

 

[Triumph]

Wonderful, another chance for Nader to blow it for a perfectly good Democratic candidate. What a fucking joke.

*sigh*

Blame Al Gore. Blame Jeb Bush for stealing it for Dubya. Or blame the Supreme Court.

But don't blame Ralph.

 

[firex]

Let Nader be the first one to be converted to Obamism when Obama takes over this country and leads us to the promised land.

 

[Gaborn]

*sigh*

Blame Al Gore. Blame Jeb Bush for stealing it for Dubya. Or blame the Supreme Court.

But don't blame Ralph.

Or he could even blame the people who chose to pull the lever for Nader. After all, like any candidate he represents a set of ideas that people are free to accept or reject. Apparently he disagrees with the voters who chose to embrace them.

 

[C4Lukins]

People should check out the documentary An Unreasonable Man. It follows his early career through his recent election shenanigans. He is a very strange man and it is a really well done film.

 

[Absinthe (Permed)]

People should check out the documentary An Unreasonable Man. It follows his early career through his recent election shenanigans. He is a very strange man and it is a really well done film.

It's a very biased film, in the same vein as Michael Moore films. It's not objective, not even in the least.

 

[Justin Bailey]

<3 Nader <3

If he can get on the ballot, I will vote for him. If he can't I won't make a point to write him in unless Hillary is the nominee on the dem side.

Welp, that's one stolen vote from Obama, any others?

 

[ronito]

The only way I'd vote for him is if Hillary got nominated. But then that's not saying much.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

Triumph you can remove you avatar now and hand in your Hope card

respect -1

 

[Gaborn]

Welp, that's one stolen vote from Obama, any others?

I'm pretty sure Nader could more or less correctly argue every vote for Obama is a vote stolen from him.

 

[USD]

Ralph Nader owns you people, remember this.

 

[C4Lukins]

It's a very biased film, in the same vein as Michael Moore films. It's not objective, not even in the least.

Biased in what way? I came out of it not hating or especially liking the guy, it seemed to have commentators who both bashed him and supported him. I only saw it once right after it was released, and I am pretty familiar with his career. I have only read one of his books though which was terribly boring but semi informative. I am not contradicting you, I am just curious in what direction you found it to be biased.

 

[bengraven]

So much for the Democrats.

Nader paid off by the Republicans confirmed.

 

[JayDubya]

Or he could even blame the people who chose to pull the lever for Nader. After all, like any candidate he represents a set of ideas that people are free to accept or reject. Apparently he disagrees with the voters who chose to embrace them.

Or... people should not blame any of those things, or Nader, and just vote for who they think best represents their values, and then stop being whiners when their team doesn't win the ballgame that year.

For some people, that's Obama, for others it's going to be McCain, but then there's also more than two choices out there, and that's a good thing.

 

[Keylime]

Ralph running is basically him saying that he would rather increase the odds of a Republican candidate being seated again for another 4 years.

If he truly believed in his ideals, he would come to terms with the fact that he can't win shit, and he shouldn't fuck with the chances of someone who at least sees things more closely to win this election. Shut the fuck up, and sit the fuck down.

If Obama loses this by the same number of points Nader gets by running... I don't know what the fuck I'd do. Probably nothing but flip the shit out on GAF...but holy christ does this piss me off.

It's one thing to have your own opinions and to disagree with a candidate. It's entirely something else when you have 0% chance of winning, and are essentially saying you would rather the other side win then your own...just so you could stand on your soap box a little longer.

Do not fuck with the Democratic votes you idiot... do fucking not. If a Republican is sitting in the oval office when the dust settles... holy shit...

Fuck this news.

...

If there were no political parties, this wouldn't be an issue whatsoever...but there are. And he's going to be leeching from only one side.

 

[Gaborn]

If he truly believed in his ideals, he would come to terms with the fact that he can't win shit, and he shouldn't fuck with the chances of someone who at least sees things more closely to win this election. Shut the fuck up, and sit the fuck down.

The other obvious solution would be for Obama to withdraw and endorse Nader, thus uniting their respective bases.

 

[grandjedi6]

I have no problem with 3rd parties running. But why the hell Nader? He isn't even running with his own party. So what is the point?

 

[C4Lukins]

Ralph running is basically him saying that he would rather increase the odds of a Republican candidate being seated again for another 4 years.

If he truly believed in his ideals, he would come to terms with the fact that he can't win shit, and he shouldn't fuck with the chances of someone who at least sees things more closely to win this election. Shut the fuck up, and sit the fuck down.

If Obama loses this by the same number of points Nader gets by running... I don't know what the fuck I'd do. Probably nothing but flip the shit out on GAF...but holy christ does this piss me off.

It's one thing to have your own opinions and to disagree with a candidate. It's entirely something else when you have 0% chance of winning, and are essentially saying you would rather the other side win then your own...just so you could stand on your soap box a little longer.

Do not fuck with the Democratic votes you idiot... do fucking not. If a Republican is sitting in the oval office when the dust settles... holy shit...

Fuck this news.

...

If there were no political parties, this wouldn't be an issue whatsoever...but there are. And he's going to be leeching from only one side.

Will you complain like this if Bloomberg or Ron Paul decide to run as an Independent?

 

[Mason]

Dammit Nader.... just DAMMIT

 

[Justin Bailey]

I'm pretty sure Nader could more or less correctly argue every vote for Obama is a vote stolen from him.

The other obvious solution would be for Obama to withdraw and endorse Nader, thus uniting their respective bases.

Hey lemmie get a hit of whatever you're smoking.

 

[Gaborn]

Hey lemmie get a hit of whatever you're smoking.

Do you disagree with either of those statements? Practically speaking most Obama voters, should he drop out would probably not go over to McCain. Practically speaking, if the concern is to some degree the "liberal" vote is going to be split by Nader, then Obama dropping out would work just as effectively as Nader dropping out in uniting that vote.

 

[Keylime]

Will you complain like this if Bloomberg or Ron Paul decide to run as an Independent?

Nope.

I think it's clear who my choice is in this election.

That being said, I'm fine if there are no parties involved at all...just people running. Just people running means people look at individuals and vote based on the candidate.

Having two left leaning candidates and one right leaning candidate means that the lefties need to work a lot harder to win.

If elections weren't brought down to 2 candidates that can win, and other candidates who can't...I wouldn't give 2 shits who ran. But that's not reality, and Nader apparently doesn't live in it.

 

[JayDubya]

This sort of thing is generally curious to see given that I've seen most of political GAF's scores on Political Compass, and Nader should, in theory, have a huge well of support.

Now if you're closer to Obama on the issues, good for you, support your guy, but I can't see why you'd begrudge the Green candidate.

 

[grandjedi6]

Do you disagree with either of those statements? Practically speaking most Obama voters, should he drop out would probably not go over to McCain. Practically speaking, if the concern is to some degree the "liberal" vote is going to be split by Nader, then Obama dropping out would work just as effectively as Nader dropping out in uniting that vote.

You honestly think all Obama supporters would vote for Nader. ONly 1% would probably do it in actuality

 

[Stoney Mason]

Now if you're closer to Obama on the issues, good for you, support your guy, but I can't see why you'd begrudge the Green candidate.

Nadar should realize the perfect candidate is running and step out of the way for the good of the country.


I'm guessing this is the view from certain quarters...

 

[Keylime]

This sort of thing is generally curious to see given that I've seen most of political GAF's scores on Political Compass, and Nader should, in theory, have a huge well of support.

Now if you're closer to Obama on the issues, good for you, support your guy, but I can't see why you'd begrudge the Green candidate.

Do you really believe that people vote purely based on issues? I know you're smarter than that.

 

[Gaborn]

You honestly think all Obama supporters would vote for Nader. ONly 1% would probably do it in actuality

Not necessarily, no. But given the choice between McCain, and Nader? Yes, I do think so. I do find it interesting though that the fear is that Nader's going to steal Obama's voters, but that you seem to believe Obama's voters would be unwilling to support Nader in that situation.

I mean, don't get me wrong, you guys can do what you want, I'm almost guaranteed to vote LP this time around, but it seems sensible enough.

 

[Justin Bailey]

Do you disagree with either of those statements? Practically speaking most Obama voters, should he drop out would probably not go over to McCain. Practically speaking, if the concern is to some degree the "liberal" vote is going to be split by Nader, then Obama dropping out would work just as effectively as Nader dropping out in uniting that vote.

Are all Obama supporters Nader supporters? No.

Are some Obama supporters Nader supporters? Yes.

 

[grandjedi6]

This sort of thing is generally curious to see given that I've seen most of political GAF's scores on Political Compass, and Nader should, in theory, have a huge well of support.

Now if you're closer to Obama on the issues, good for you, support your guy, but I can't see why you'd begrudge the Green candidate.

See right there is my problem. He isn't the green candidate. If he ran, he would run independent. There is no point to him running, and he isn't helping a cause. So why?

 

[grandjedi6]

Not necessarily, no. But given the choice between McCain, and Nader? Yes, I do think so. I do find it interesting though that the fear is that Nader's going to steal Obama's voters, but that you seem to believe Obama's voters would be unwilling to support Nader in that situation.

I mean, don't get me wrong, you guys can do what you want, I'm almost guaranteed to vote LP this time around, but it seems sensible enough.

What about the majority of Americans who are moderate and would be far closer to McCain than Nader?

 

[C4Lukins]

Nope.

I think it's clear who my choice is in this election.

That being said, I'm fine if there are no parties involved at all...just people running. Just people running means people look at individuals and vote based on the candidate.

Having two left leaning candidates and one right leaning candidate means that the lefties need to work a lot harder to win.

If elections weren't brought down to 2 candidates that can win, and other candidates who can't...I wouldn't give 2 shits who ran. But that's not reality, and Nader apparently doesn't live in it.

So you are just pissed because it effects your personal choice? That makes sense and is reasonable. I thought you may be suggesting that it should just be the two parties running in the election. I would actually like to see a process where there is an initial election to determine the final two candidates in order to prevent these spoiler guys who appear from time to time. I think just having something like that in place would really expand the political landscape for the electoral process.

 

[Gaborn]

Are all Obama supporters Nader supporters? No.

Are some Obama supporters Nader supporters? Yes.

True, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Again, the theory of some people here is a binary, or trinary race, where the major players are McCain, Obama, and Nader. Lets say Nader leaves the race. Presumably most of his supporters would support Obama rather than McCain. Now, instead lets say Obama has some sort of campaign ending scandal and quits the race. Where exactly would you believe Obama's supporters would go?

Grand Jedi - *shrug* According to some groups (who are probably rather biased but nonetheless...) Obama's about as far left and non moderate in his ideology, if not his rhetoric as you can get. I'm not sure how many moderates Obama will really pull at the end of the day anyway.

 

[Keylime]

Not necessarily, no. But given the choice between McCain, and Nader? Yes, I do think so. I do find it interesting though that the fear is that Nader's going to steal Obama's voters, but that you seem to believe Obama's voters would be unwilling to support Nader in that situation.

I mean, don't get me wrong, you guys can do what you want, I'm almost guaranteed to vote LP this time around, but it seems sensible enough.

Obama vs McCain vs. Nader

McCain: 46%
Obama: 43%
Nader: 4%

Obama vs. McCain

Obama:47%
McCain: 46%

Nader vs. McCain

McCain: 76%
Nader: 15%

 

[demon]

Nader doesn't have a fucking chance, he knows it, everybody knows it. Stay the fuck out of the presidential elections.

Nadar should realize the perfect candidate is running and step out of the way for the good of the country.

That.

 

[Justin Bailey]

True, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Again, the theory of some people here is a binary, or trinary race, where the major players are McCain, Obama, and Nader. Lets say Nader leaves the race. Presumably most of his supporters would support Obama rather than McCain. Now, instead lets say Obama has some sort of campaign ending scandal and quits the race. Where exactly would you believe Obama's supporters would go?

Seeing as how most of America is actually moderate, they would probably either split or McCain would walk away with an edge based on name recognition alone - effectively giving him the election.

 

[Gaborn]

Obama vs McCain vs. Nader

McCain: 46%
Obama: 43%
Nader: 4%

Obama vs. McCain

Obama:47%
McCain: 46%

Nader vs. McCain

McCain: 76%
Nader: 15%

Which would be great for McCain or for Obama for that matter if the election were held tomorrow. As of right now it's an interesting fatoid but probably useless. I'm pretty sure at this point Al Gore was leading in the polls by a wide margin as well, heck, at this point I'm reasonably sure ROSS PEROT was the front runner in '92. Perceptions shift and using this poll as some sort of evidence for a point isn't exactly useful.

 

[grandjedi6]

True, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Again, the theory of some people here is a binary, or trinary race, where the major players are McCain, Obama, and Nader. Lets say Nader leaves the race. Presumably most of his supporters would support Obama rather than McCain. Now, instead lets say Obama has some sort of campaign ending scandal and quits the race. Where exactly would you believe Obama's supporters would go?

Grand Jedi - *shrug* According to some groups (who are probably rather biased but nonetheless...) Obama's about as far left and non moderate in his ideology, if not his rhetoric as you can get. I'm not sure how many moderates Obama will really pull at the end of the day anyway.

It's naive to think that the majority of Obama's supporters share his ideology, most of them are likely moderate and would be closer to McCain than Nader. Especially come GE time when McCain paints himself as a maverick moderate while Nader stays as the far left. Plus that isn't even counting the quality of the President or people's various popularity contest influences like name recognization

 

[Keylime]

Which would be great for McCain or for Obama for that matter if the election were held tomorrow. As of right now it's an interesting fatoid but probably useless. I'm pretty sure at this point Al Gore was leading in the polls by a wide margin as well, heck, at this point I'm reasonably sure ROSS PEROT was the front runner in '92. Perceptions shift and using this poll as some sort of evidence for a point isn't exactly useful.

I just made these numbers up.

Tell Nader to fix the party system and election process before he starts fucking with the one already in place.

The only point he's making is that he thinks too highly of himself.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

I've always been a "screw nader" person being a democrat, but have never really heard anything negative about him other than he screws with the democrats chances. A lot of what he talks about seems very positive and hard to argue against. Does anyone have any negative about him? I just want more information on why people are so negative on him.

Nader did'nt cost anybody any election.

1- You have to earn your votes, people are'nt born Democrate/republican...ect

2- people who voted for Nader in 2000D), would'nt vote AT ALL, usually the feeling is "This is Jack Johnson vs John Jackson, I ain'nt votin'. ". Nader Voters were NEW voters mostly.

3- John Kerry???...:lol :lol :lol , pathetic. I did'nt even vote at all in 2004. One of the shittiest Election cycles of all time.

Nader is great American figure, He's Done ALOT for this country, and i mean things I believe would've never happen. BUT, my problem with him is his personality, he's a bit hard headed, does'nt seem like a good negotiator. Public Advocate suits him best, and people tell em that. But he keeps running for President and clearly he's not a politician.

I suported him in 2000, cuz i agree with most of his agenda, and he's very straight foward and I wanted (STILL DO) more than a 2 Party System. But Nader is not a good politician, he would'nt be able to bring these changes.

so i cant support him this time

 

[Xisiqomelir]

Obama vs McCain vs. Nader

McCain: 46%
Obama: 43%
Nader: 4%

Motherfucker

 

[JayDubya]

Do you really believe that people vote purely based on issues? I know you're smarter than that.

I believe I do and other people should. Whether they do or not is not up to me.

 

[Mandark]

JayDubya: GAME THEORY

People get one vote for president, which goes towards electoral college votes, which are assigned on a plurality-takes-all basis.

Voting isn't just an expression of pure preference. It's a choice among limited options, taking into account the likely actions of others.

Imagine a country with an electorate split the following way: 40% socialist, 10% geolibertarian, 10% classical liberal, 10% Objectivist, 10% anarcho-capitalist, and 20% miniarchist.

Presidential elections have the same system as the US, and there is a candidate representing each philosophy. Every time that everyone votes their first preference, there's a predictable result. Should the libertarians be commended for sticking to their principles, election after election, as a socialist state gradually engulfs them?

The failure is built into the system, but that doesn't mean voters shouldn't take the system into account when making their decision.

 

[whytemyke]

What's it say about the DNC when they're running scared from Ralph Nader? What's it say about Democrats that they tremble at the very possibility of Nader running? Let him run and take him on just like McCain. Those votes aren't Obama/Clitnons anymore than they're anyone elses and if you're afraid to run or vote because of a third party candidate then you have no business voting or running in the first place.

Maybe if one person can split your party in half like that then you should reconsider the premises, or promises, upon which your party is built.

JayDubya: GAME THEORY

People get one vote for president, which goes towards electoral college votes, which are assigned on a plurality-takes-all basis.

Voting isn't just an expression of pure preference. It's a choice among limited options, taking into account the likely actions of others.

Imagine a country with an electorate split the following way: 40% socialist, 10% geolibertarian, 10% classical liberal, 10% Objectivist, 10% anarcho-capitalist, and 20% miniarchist.

Presidential elections have the same system as the US, and there is a candidate representing each philosophy. Every time that everyone votes their first preference, there's a predictable result. Should the libertarians be commended for sticking to their principles, election after election, as a socialist state gradually engulfs them?

The failure is built into the system, but that doesn't mean voters shouldn't take the system into account when making their decision.

problem with this is that in most countries the parliament is comprised of parties of the same beliefs, not just two parties, so that when bad ideas come along the various representatives can get together. Failure is only built into the system because we hold our congressional representatives to lower standards than we do the President.

 

[Mandark]

The worry isn't that Nader will split the party "in half." It's that he could change the outcome of the election by taking a very small fraction of the votes in a swing state.

Could you rephrase the second part of your post? I don't get it at all.

 

[Propagandhim]

Somewhere, hollowed away in a little cave, is a Nader supporter that's really pissed off over the throngs of shallow Obama supporters that have no idea what the guy is about.

 

[grandjedi6]

problem with this is that in most countries the parliament is comprised of parties of the same beliefs, not just two parties, so that when bad ideas come along the various representatives can get together. Failure is only built into the system because we hold our congressional representatives to lower standards than we do the President.

What?