conservatives laugh at ralph Nader, but he's done more for consumers than anybody alive. Serve the arrogant bastard right if he's remembered as the guy who enabled the Republicans TWICE

conservatives laugh at ralph Nader, but he's done more for consumers than anybody alive. Serve the arrogant bastard right if he's remembered as the guy who enabled the Republicans TWICE

He is a pathetic narcissist egomaniac...

I pray you're wrong...

really if the dems were weak enough to lose because of nader it's their own fault. it's the dems horrid candidates that made them lose. No one lost because of nader, they lost cause they weren't as good as Bush which is really sad. Seems like anyone could've beaten shrub but the dems screwed that one up even

I always liked the Corvair. Ralph was wrong about it being unsafe. I've never been able to take anything else he says as fact.

really if the dems were weak enough to lose because of nader it's their own fault. it's the dems horrid candidates that made them lose. No one lost because of nader, they lost cause they weren't as good as Bush which is really sad. Seems like anyone could've beaten shrub but the dems screwed that one up even

any candidate who siphons votes will sway an election
Perot did
Nader did
granted Nader siphoned votes because the Dems didn't present a candidate to captivate their base or certain fringe elements
but if you are only 3% better than your opposition and a 3rd pArty candidate steals 5% of your vote you wind up in the L category

any candidate who siphons votes will sway an election
Perot did
Nader did
granted Nader siphoned votes because the Dems didn't present a candidate to captivate their base or certain fringe elements
but if you are only 3% better than your opposition and a 3rd pArty candidate steals 5% of your vote you wind up in the L category

My dad is all excited about Nader--of course he'd likely vote for McCain anyway so who cares?

really if the dems were weak enough to lose because of nader it's their own fault. it's the dems horrid candidates that made them lose. No one lost because of nader, they lost cause they weren't as good as Bush which is really sad. Seems like anyone could've beaten shrub but the dems screwed that one up even
I hear this from Democtrats a lot. It seems like hogwash becasue it ignores the (albeit hard to accept) fact that millions of people actually voted for Bush and seemed to like him around election time.

+1 ATP.

any candidate who siphons votes will sway an election
Perot did
Nader did
granted Nader siphoned votes because the Dems didn't present a candidate to captivate their base or certain fringe elements
but if you are only 3% better than your opposition and a 3rd pArty candidate steals 5% of your vote you wind up in the L category

So, in an election that's close because both the traditional party candidates are really awful, the 3rd party candidates should just step aside so we can all hold our noses to vote?

Gore lost because of GORE. He was whiny, unlikable, he talked down to everyone. If you don't like the fact that he lost, blame him, blame his campaign managers, blame the Democratic Party for not being able to stand up to Karl Rove and the politics of 51%. But don't blame Nader. Nader had every right to run and he was right to do so.

Frankly, I think we'd be a lot better off with 10 or 15 small parties instead of 2 big ones.

So, in an election that's close because both the traditional party candidates are really awful, the 3rd party candidates should just step aside so we can all hold our noses to vote?

Gore lost because of GORE. He was whiny, unlikable, he talked down to everyone. If you don't like the fact that he lost, blame him, blame his campaign managers, blame the Democratic Party for not being able to stand up to Karl Rove and the politics of 51%. But don't blame Nader. Nader had every right to run and he was right to do so.

Frankly, I think we'd be a lot better off with 10 or 15 small parties instead of 2 big ones.
There's plenty of causal factors to go around for the 2000 election, including Gore and Nadar. Blaming it on either guy entirely is silliness.

To have lots of small parties, we'd need a different political systme and electoral rules. Plus, even where you have a parlimentary system, such as the countries in western Europe, there always emerge several large ones that represent tha centrist majority. You then often get small, extreme crazy parties with lots of bargaining power becasue the major parties absolutely have to accept the small party's demand to create a majority coalition.

Nadar has good intentions but he hasn't been able to organize a strong group behind him ever. Without that, he has been pretty ineffective but for a couple of exceptions.

He did draw enough votes away from Gore to sway the outcome. True, that was Gore's election to lose and he did a great job of it. But, the outcome would have been different if Nadar wasn't in the mix. Should Nadar have bowed out? Tought call. This is democracy after all. But, I think if he really cared about change and not about Nadar bowing out would have been the right thing to do.