[NYCFarmboy]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112049,00.html

New York_—_Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate who ran for president in 2000 as a Green Party candidate, will enter the 2004 race for the White House as an independent candidate, advisers told Fox News on Friday.

A formal announcement by Nader is expected this weekend.

"He's going to be discussing his role in the presidential election," Linda Schade, a spokeswoman for Nader's presidential exploratory committee, said of the man whose 2000 run is blamed by many Democrats for tilting a close election in favor of George W. Bush (search). "He's felt there is a role for an independent candidate to play."

The relationship between Nader and the Green Party (search) has not been smooth in recent years. Money and ballot access continue to be Nader's main concerns as he's mulled a run this year.

[BRussell]

Yeah from what I've read it will be much harder this time for him to get on the ballots because he won't have that affiliation with the Green party.

[placebo1969]

If Nader indeed joins the fray, that would be good news for Bush and back for the Democrats. Just as Perot was bad news for Bush 41 and good news for the Democrats.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Yeah from what I've read it will be much harder this time for him to get on the ballots because he won't have that affiliation with the Green party.

I thought he ran the Green Party..what happened there? I'm just assuming he would run again as a Green?

[BRussell]

As I remember it in 2000 he had a very strange relationship with them. He said he was NOT a member of the Green party, even though he was running as their candidate.

But this time around, apparently, he won't be affiliated with them at all.

[Turias]

Back at the beginning of the primaries, the Green Party was mostly supporting Kucinich. I'm not sure what they are planning on doing, now.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by BRussell:
As I remember it in 2000 he had a very strange relationship with them. He said he was NOT a member of the Green party, even though he was running as their candidate.

But this time around, apparently, he won't be affiliated with them at all.

Yes, I think your memory serves you well.

Take the only candidate and the only party that I have any bit of respect for, add a dash of luddite technophobia and you have the makings of...

Well. It was the best I had to work with at the time. Heh.

But I don't think him entering the race now is the best way to serve his cause. Though I bet he could pick up a few Dean bloggers at a reduced rate.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by Turias:
Back at the beginning of the primaries, the Green Party was mostly supporting Kucinich. I'm not sure what they are planning on doing, now.

We will argue over it for hours while we sip Yerba Matte tea.

Then we will go home as divisive as we are unified in our fight against... those Mean People.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Turias:
Back at the beginning of the primaries, the Green Party was mostly supporting Kucinich. I'm not sure what they are planning on doing, now.

The Greens are conducting their own primary process just like other national parties, they just don't get any press coverage.

Right now David Cobb has 9 delegates, and Peter Camejo (the California gubernatorial candidate) has 5.

Nader officially withdrew his name from consideration long ago. There were ongoing efforts to draft Nader as the Green candidate (as was done in the past), but that doesn't appear to be likely at this point.

Camejo has said all along he would prefer to see Nader as the candidate and it is as yet uncertain whether or not Camejo would accept the nomination even if he won it. There is an effort to draft him into the race as well.

The Greens are very very divided this year and even more disorganized than usual (organizing Greens is a bit like herding cats). The principle divide is whether to stick to their ideological guns or be pragmatic and fight for the Democrats. The split is very deep and very hotly debated.

All in all, I don't expect Greens or even Nader as an independent to swing the election one way or the other in 2004. The election will hinge on voter turnout.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by daimoni:
We will argue over it for hours while we sip Yerba Matte tea.

Then we will go home as divisive as we are unified in our fight against... those Mean People.

[chris v]

Originally posted by daimoni:
We will argue over it for hours while we sip Yerba Matte tea.

Then we will go home as divisive as we are unified in our fight against... those Mean People.

*clink* could you pass the organic honey?

I don't thnk Nader will be the "spoiler" that he was in 2000 (and we could argue whether he really was such, and have in the past....). Most of the idealists on the left have begun to grow a pragmatic stance, and would rather see Bush defeated by any [legal] means neccessary, so there won't be just a ton of the "vote your concience" groundswell behind a Nader candidacy.

I say to fellow Greens, back Kucinich as much as possible through the primaries, and hope he can enter the convention with enough delegates to at least be heard on the issues. After the convention, do what needs to be done, and focus on actually winning something for once. Of course, that will mean not voting Green in most cases.

CV

[nredman]

haha Nader haha

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by chris v:
*clink* could you pass the organic honey?

I don't thnk Nader will be the "spoiler" that he was in 2000 (and we could argue whether he really was such, and have in the past....).

AFAIK, not a *single* third party candidate has ever won a single solitary electoral college vote. I would say there has never been a spoiler, the electoral college will never give votes to them, so they don't effect the outcome at all.

Let him run. The electoral college doesn't care.

[itai195]

A spoiler can take away popular votes that could cost a candidate the electoral college vote in any particular state. Eg if Gore had gotten some of Nader's votes in Florida in 2000, he'd have won the state's electoral votes and the presidency.

This wouldn't be as much of a problem if electoral votes were awarded proportionately nationwide, as they are in Maine and Nebraska.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
AFAIK, not a *single* third party candidate has ever won a single solitary electoral college vote. I would say there has never been a spoiler, the electoral college will never give votes to them, so they don't effect the outcome at all.

Let him run. The electoral college doesn't care.

I don't think it matters if they have ever one an electoral college vote. What matters is if they have kept another candidate from getting the electoral vote. That's the spoiler.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
AFAIK, not a *single* third party candidate has ever won a single solitary electoral college vote. I would say there has never been a spoiler, the electoral college will never give votes to them, so they don't effect the outcome at all.

Let him run. The electoral college doesn't care.

What about Teddy Roosevelt?

[itai195]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
What about Teddy Roosevelt?

Hell, what about Lloyd Bentsen?

Ack, well I guess he was a Democrat. 1988 was so long ago...

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by itai195:
Hell, what about Lloyd Bentsen?

Ack, well I guess he was a Democrat.

Lloyd Bentsen..there is a name history has forgot...what was he..Dukakas's VP choice?

Didn't Teddy Roosevelt run as a 3rd party candidate at one point AFTER he was out of office being a former Republican President? And didn't he win some electoral votes then when he did run as a Progressive or whatever it is he ran as...Bull Moose Party?

[itai195]

Yes, but he somehow got an electoral vote, I believe it was from West Virginia.

TR won more electoral votes than the Republican nominee (Taft) in 1912, a lot more.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by itai195:
This wouldn't be as much of a problem if electoral votes were awarded proportionately nationwide, as they are in Maine and Nebraska.

This is exactly my point.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:

AFAIK, not a *single* third party candidate has ever won a single solitary electoral college vote. I would say there has never been a spoiler, the electoral college will never give votes to them, so they don't effect the outcome at all...

What about Teddy Roosevelt?

Yep. Roosevelt got 88 electoral votes in 1912. There's no question TR was a spoiler that year. The GOP nominee (and incumbent) only got 8! The popular vote for TR and Taft combined was 50.7%. The victor, Democrat Woodrow Wilson, only recieved 41.9% of the vote.

Other third party candidates who've won electoral votes: George Wallace in 1968 got 46 electoral votes. In 1948 Strom Thurmond recieved 39 electoral votes.

[maxelson]

Oh, for crying out loud. YOu know, time was I had some respect for Nader. A bit, anyway. Screw that. Is he totally DE-ranged? What does he hope to accomplish THIS time?

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
What about Teddy Roosevelt?

what about strom thurmond when he ran third party against truman and dewey? i thought he won at least one state..

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Oh, for crying out loud. YOu know, time was I had some respect for Nader. A bit, anyway. Screw that. Is he totally DE-ranged? What does he hope to accomplish THIS time?

i believe he feels that neither major party offers anything different than the others, that both are so corrupted by special interests and corporations that they have lost sight of both the best interest and the voices of the people. i doubt nader cares for the dems any more than he does the repubs, perhaps even less since he views them as hypocritical in that they present a liberal stance but in reality are no different than the opposition. i also doubt he feels any moral obligation to stay out of it just to tip things in favor of the dems. maybe he would have stayed out if dean were the frontrunner, but a centrist like kerry? what's the difference between kerry and bush? they're both massacussets skull and bones aristocrats who were bought and paid for before they were even born. nader's out to stir things up and i'm sure his narcissism and ego provide enough of a boost to get by any remaining reluctance to stay out of the limelight.

just a guess, though.

[Oneota]

I'm all for voting with your convictions, but I think the bigger issue is getting Bush out of office; and Nader can't help in that cause, only hurt. We can be idealists in '08 - there are bigger issues in this election.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Oneota:
I'm all for voting with your convictions, but I think the bigger issue is getting Bush out of office; and Nader can't help in that cause, only hurt. We can be idealists in '08 - there are bigger issues in this election.

I dunno, I would be highly amused if the reason Bush gets re-elected is Nader. As bad a thing as I think it would be for Bush to stay in office, it'll be damned hillarious.

[pooka]

You see, kids? One man can make a difference.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Oneota:
I'm all for voting with your convictions, but I think the bigger issue is getting Bush out of office; and Nader can't help in that cause, only hurt. We can be idealists in '08 - there are bigger issues in this election.

As a realist, I think this year Nader has a real chance, he is VERY VERY VERY much needed in this election.

It is time Nader to again come forward and speak to these great issues. Rather than have a talking head go up against Bush..let us at least have a real alternative who really actually does stand for something.

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by Oneota:
I'm all for voting with your convictions, but I think the bigger issue is getting Bush out of office; and Nader can't help in that cause, only hurt. We can be idealists in '08 - there are bigger issues in this election.

Do you seriously think anything that's happened since Bush was elected would be significantly different if Kerry were president, instead?

Our response to 9/11 would have been the same, no matter who was president.

Kerry is on the record as having supported the invasion of Iraq when the decision was made. He voiced his support based on the same information that now appears to have been inaccurate.

Kerry and Bush are the same guy, owned by the same people.

Isn't anyone the least bit suspicious of how Dean had -so- much momentum and popular support only to somehow have his ass handed to him in Iowa by a guy who was on the verge of dropping out?

[voodoo]

Vote Bush or vote Kerry. Who cares?

[voodoo]

Nader is an egoist first and foremost. I met some of the people that voted Nader in 2000. They drank the coolaid.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Nader is an egoist first and foremost. I met some of the people that voted Nader in 2000. They drank the coolaid.

Remember...Nader is anti-corporate America.. so I'm sure it was not Kool-Aid™ brand drink mix... but some homeopathic brew.

seriously though... there is only one possible reason to support Nader in 2004 versus Kerry... this is because Nader, like him or not, stands for what he believes, and does not just say what is popular at the moment.

Kerry supported Gay Marriage at one time.. now he is against gay "marriage".
Kerry voted to authorize the use of force to remove Saddam.. now he is againt "that illegal war"...that he VOTED to authorize.

Like him or not, Nader doesn't twist in the wind....granted he is an egoist..but whom running for President is not?
Some people are just so completely sick of politicians like Kerry who will just say whatever is popular at the moment.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Vote Bush or vote Kerry. Who cares?

Yes. Precisely. Let's all do nothing. And then here you whinge about it for the next 4 years.

[BRussell]

As a Democrat who really wants Bush out, I still don't mind Nader running. It seems almost anti-Democratic to criticize him for running. Don't vote for him, but don't criticize him for exercising his right to run.

Wouldn't it be nice, though, if we had a different kind of voting system, like a ranking system, in which people who want to vote for Nader wouldn't in reality be voting for Bush.

[Spliffdaddy]

quick question...

what does Ralph Nader do for a living?

[daimoni]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
quick question...

what does Ralph Nader do for a living?

http://www.nader.org/

quick question...

what has Dubya ever done for a living?

[Spliffdaddy]

Dubya was employed as a governor and currently as the president of the US.

I see Nader is still an author.

Back when I was 8 I remember reading his book about the Chevy Corvair. Even then, when I was in 3rd grade, I knew Nader was a dumbass. Glad to see some things never change.

He's on TV right now. Said divorce is the biggest threat to marriage. lol. reckon death is the biggest threat to life. and wet is the biggest threat to dry.


I heard Nader imply that union jobs were 'good' jobs. Figuring labor unions to be the polar opposite of big business - why doesn't the AFL-CIO throw some loot at Nader? (answer: because he isn't a Democrat. Labor unions are DNC entities.)

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by BRussell:
As a Democrat who really wants Bush out, I still don't mind Nader running. It seems almost anti-Democratic to criticize him for running. Don't vote for him, but don't criticize him for exercising his right to run.

Wouldn't it be nice, though, if we had a different kind of voting system, like a ranking system, in which people who want to vote for Nader wouldn't in reality be voting for Bush.

Instant-Runoff-Voting. Then there would be no problem with people voting for a third party hurting the chances of their less-disliked major party winning.

[NYCFarmboy]

Kerry was born to his wealth:

which Kerry smartly chose to increase vastly by marriage to the wife of a Republican senator killed in a plane crash.

Kerry then "morgaged" his wife's house for 6 million bucks to infuse his campaign in Iowa with cash to keep it from going under at one point.... to generate the "popular" vote in Iowa...

...just saw Nader on meet the press... was so refreshing to see a real candidate support complete and full gay marriage...which Kerry opposes (presently anyhow).

[voodoo]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Yes. Precisely. Let's all do nothing. And then here you whinge about it for the next 4 years.

Been reading the tea leaves?

American Democrats have put it crystal clear: 'We don't want any change'.

American Republicans have said the same thing.

They decide => Bush or Kerry will become the next US president => there will be no change.

Fine. That is how the cookie crumbles, but at least the president of the biggest meddling country in the world will probably be voted properly this time. My bet is on JFK actually. He'll make it and Bush will go the way of his father.

Maybe American voters will surprise me and vote Bush for a second term. I'll be sure to bring the popcorn and the Pepsi this november.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Been reading the tea leaves?

American Democrats have put it crystal clear: 'We don't want any change'.

American Republicans have said the same thing.

They decide => Bush or Kerry will become the next US president => there will be no change.

Fine. That is how the cookie crumbles, but at least the president of the biggest meddling country in the world will probably be voted properly this time. My bet is on JFK actually. He'll make it and Bush will go the way of his father.

Maybe American voters will surprise me and vote Bush for a second term. I'll be sure to bring the popcorn and the Pepsi this november.

Exactly.

And maybe you'll even win a free iTunes download in the process.

[NYCFarmboy]

Feb 22, 1:46 PM (ET)

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ralph Nader, whose third-party White House bid in 2000 was blamed by some Democrats for helping elect President Bush, said on Sunday he will try again this year as an independent.

Ignoring pleas from Democrats to stay out of the race, the veteran consumer advocate said he wanted to challenge the two parties' stranglehold on the political process and their shared addiction to corporate interests.

"Washington is corporate-occupied territory, and the two parties are ferociously competing to see who is going to go to the White House and take orders from their corporate paymasters," Nader said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Nader said claims that his candidacy would spoil efforts to beat Bush in November were a "contemptuous" attempt to restrict democracy and maintain a "two-party duopoly."

"It is an offense to deny millions of people who might want to vote for our candidacy an opportunity to vote," he said, adding the "corporate government" practiced by both parties had led to rollbacks in labor, environmental, health care and economic standards.

"It's time to change the equation and bring millions of American people into the political arena."

Nader's Green Party bid won nearly 2.9 million votes in 2000 and was blamed for siphoning support from Democrat Al Gore -- particularly in Florida, where Nader won 97,488 votes and Gore's loss by a bitterly contested 537 votes cost him the presidency.

Nader started an exploratory committee late last year to raise money for a presidential run. He had ruled out another bid for the Green Party, which was split on his candidacy and will not pick its nominee until this summer.

A public opinion poll in October found two-thirds of Americans did not want Nader to run again, and Democrats from across the ideological spectrum have asked him to stay out of the race.

A liberal Internet site, ralphdontrun.net, is devoted to urging Nader not to run again, and Democratic Party chief Terry McAuliffe had met with Nader to try to convince him to stay out.

"It's very unfortunate that Ralph decided to run," McAuliffe said on CBS' "Face the Nation," adding: "There are people all over the country wishing he hadn't done it."

Democrats expect Nader to have less of an impact this year than in 2000, saying party and left-wing activists have learned how wrong Nader was when he claimed in 2000 there was no difference between the two parties.

"I don't think he'll have a sizable impact, but it's terrible if he goes ahead because it's about him, it's about his ego, it's about his vanity and not about a movement," New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said on "Fox News Sunday."

Both Democratic presidential contenders, front-runner John Kerry and rival John Edwards, told reporters they were not worried that a Nader candidacy would hurt them if they face Bush in November.

"I think my campaign is speaking to a lot of the issues Ralph Nader is concerned about," Kerry said. Edwards said "it will not impact my campaign" because he could attract many of the voters who might otherwise go to Nader.

Republicans tried not to celebrate the news. "Regardless of what Ralph Nader does, President Bush is going to be re-elected in November," Republican Party chief Ed Gillespie said.

Nader admitted he would have difficulty meeting the requirements to qualify for all 50 state ballots in the November election, describing the process as "like climbing a cliff with a slippery rope."

"This isn't just our fight," he said. "This is a fight for all third parties ... I don't think America belongs just to the Democratic and Republican parties."

[MacGorilla]

I'll vote for Nader again, as I did in 2000. He wont win my state (massachusetts) but I like him and shares many of my views.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I'll vote for Nader again, as I did in 2000. He wont win my state (massachusetts) but I like him and shares many of my views.

Does he have a website?

[Klaus1]

One can read a lot about what Nader says about domestic issues but, as an 'outsider' I would like to know what his views and aims are regarding US foreign policy?

[lloyd1981]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Does he have a website?

Yes.

http://www.votenader.org/

[lloyd1981]

"This isn't just our fight," he said. "This is a fight for all third parties ... I don't think America belongs just to the Democratic and Republican parties."

—Nader

He just about has made certain that there will be one-party domination after the election.

At it again. Feed the ego.

[Millennium]

Well, so much for Kerry's chances, then.

Frankly, though, I find this to be rather revealing. If the Democrats really wanted to shake things up, Dean would endorse Nader. It would cost Dems the election for sure -though with Nader appearing in the election, it's doubtful they could have won anyway- but the Greens would be virtually guaranteed the 5% of the vote required to get matching federal funds in elections through the next cycle (and the Democrats would certainly maintain the votes needed to keep their own funds going).

Think about it. A third party with that kind of money would take time to build real legislative power, but they'd actually have a chance of building it for once. Even before then, the Dems and Republicans alike would be forced to pay attention to them (even if only to try and keep their own respective strangleholds on power). We might start seeing actual debates again, real discussions of issues.

In short, Dean has the chance to break the back of the two-party system -albeit with a short-term sacrifice- and he is throwing it all away on a gamble which will, at best, do nothing but preserve the status quo. Some liberal he is.

[Sven G]

Obviously, as has been said before, both the Republicans and the Democrats seem to care much more about preserving their current "power", rather than engaging in some new politics driven by ideals.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by voodoo:
My bet is on JFK actually. He'll make it and Bush will go the way of his father.

Good God, no, we don't want Dubya buying ANOTHER Bush into office in ten years to complete what he didn't manage: bankrupt the country and blow up the world.