Hillary? Obama? McCain? A mere sideshowFollow

Nader is, as usual, thinking about Nader.

I won't curse him for running -- that's supposed to be an option open to anyone in this country who meets the 35 years old/natural born citizen qualifications. It didn't say if he was returning to the Green Party or not but his 2004 independent run netted him less than 1% of the vote.

Older voters will remember him for costing the 2000 election. Younger voters won't know who in the hell he is and they're all voting for Obama anyway

Where is Ross Perot when you need him.

I believe that's called scapegoating.

I voted for Nader in 2000.

Sorry.

Yes, Gore was a relatively weak candidate in 2000, hence the importance of Nader that year. However, the fact still remains that if that 2% of the vote that Nader got had went to Gore, there would have been a very different outcome in the 2000 election. Many Democrats do feel that 2% is what cost Gore the election- and I agree with that sentiment. What's in the past is in the past, of course- however, I wish voters would realize the shape this country is in, and that right now it's more imperative to vote for a candidate that can actually win, and get the current establishment out of office. That was what angered me in the 2004 election, even though it did not end up making much of a difference.

That said, I'm all about 3rd party candidates and I definitely believe they should have the right to run, don't get me wrong. For example, there might have been a different outcome in 1992 had Ross Perot not "taken" some conservative votes from George H.W. Bush- it happens on both sides. Anyway, if Obama gets the nomination, I'm actually not too worried about Nader being on the ballot, actually. Both of the Democratic candidates are very strong, and unless the outcome of the nomination ends up very badly, I think they will be able to do well, even with Nader running.

What would be nice is if we had a sort of preferential system, like Australia. That way, people could say they "support" third party candidates, and still vote for a main party candidate. It might not be a bad idea, except seeing as voters already have problems just voting for one candidate (especially here in FL *cough*) it's probably entirely unrealistic.

I viewed this a lot differently.



Gore should have been a strong candidate. For lack of a better way of putting it, had Al been Al from the beginning of the campaign to the end he would have probably won a state or two elsewhere taking Florida out of play completely.

Nader's major upswing came after the first presidential debate. I recall watching that debate wondering if Al was trying to lose. The second debate was just as bad and the Nader uptrend continued. Nader was polling as high as 20% in Oregon at one point after the second debate. It was almost starting to look like Nader was actually electable. Al reverted to the slightly dull but intelligent man that we were used to in debate three. It was a huge improvement and Nader's support fell drastically, but not back to the numbers it was before the first debate.

The second mistake was the DNC fear tactic. Far too many Democratic leaders were running around playing the "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" banter. This was a really stupid thing to do. All it accomplished was solidifying Nader's then sliding support turning what was left in contentious states into an obstinate voting block. Had this fear tactic not been pulled, Nader would have likely continued to slide.

Something else to consider, a substantial chunk of Nader's supporters claimed they would not have voted for president at all if Nader was not in the race, so counting those as Gore votes is questionable logic. Some people have sincere trouble with voting yes to a candidate they don't actually support.

Joe as a running mate wasn't an asset with the more liberal bunch either.



This perception is why we will never have a truly viable third party in the US. Third-party candidates are considered unelectable by default to most people presently and I don't see the perception changing any time soon.



I disagree and think is another mediocre set of candidates. We've just become a lot more accustomed to it.

Hillary, should have been a given for the nomination, but an overconfident, arrogant and inept campaign is probably going to lose it for her. It's not helping her that Obama is her equal (if not a touch better) in the debates.

The Republicans would rather run against Clinton. They know how to run against her: attack her not her positions. The mainstream media seems to be a shade biased toward Clinton. Obama, on the other hand, they are going to have a tougher time campaigning against. His unknowns and ability to debate effectively in what McCain likely considers to be his strong suit will be a huge asset. Sadly, I still don't think either one is what I would consider to be a strong candidate and the national elections will probably be a little too close for comfort with either one.

If it becomes a brokered convention nomination, McCain will win in a landslide due to disenchanted supporters of the losing side ceasing to care. Once again, if it's close anywhere: expect shenanigans.



Instant run-off voting is starting to inch it's way around in a few places but is being met with massive opposition by the current two party system every time it is brought up. The usual and insulting attack its detractors use is that it would be too confusing for people to understand. It's a lousy argument, but it seems to work to defeat it most of the time.

He won't. There are a handful of things from the last couple years that the media could throw at him to keep him permanently under 1% this time around. In particular they could throw his little reported baseball reform campaign in his face. That was just sad and embarrassing to watch.

I think Nader did affect the election and helped Gore to lose but, I also agree with Kitca that it's not Nader's fault that Gore ran a pretty lack-luster campaign. Obama's statement on Nader's run is that it's Obama's job to present a compelling enough case that he isn't threatened by a 2% vote loss.

Besides, in 2006, the Libertarian party cost the Republicans South Dakota and won the Democrats the Senate. So I can't complain about 3rd party spoilers too much

Nader's an afterthought in this election. I think it's a waste of time to give a damn, frankly.

+1 me.

.

Careful, Smash. You don't want to jinx Obama by giving him praise.

Ding! An assumed obligation to follow in Daddy's footsteps is not necessarily the best way to go. Right, Dubya?

Well, I didn't want to be the one to break it to you.... But did you see that movie "Farewell my Concubine?"