http://www.ralphdontrun.net

http://votenader.org/

Now with Ralph Nader back he all but gauruntees four more years of the evil empire. Mwaaahahahaha.

People are worried he will steal votes from the dems. I'm happy, go Ralph!

I can't stand how the democrats are constantly whining about Nader running. If they don't want him to run, then maybe they should listen to Nader and his supporters and give us a candidate worth voting for on the democratic ticket. Nader isn't stealing my vote away from the democrats, they never had my vote. The democrats are stealing Nader's votes with scare tactics that keep people from voting for what they believe in.

Trying to scare the public into voting democrat by saying "remove Bush at all costs" allows the democratic candidate go unchecked. I care about who sits in the whitehouse, "anyone but Bush" will not do. I've said it before, I won't vote for the lesser of two evils.

While it may be true the democrats never had your vote, the vast majority of those who voted for Nader in 2000 and presumably those who will vote for him this year, were democrats or at the very least liberal-minded. People who are inclined to vote republican will not change their mind for Nader, therefore there is only one substantial group left to vote for him: democrats. This leads to the accusation of "vote-stealing".
It's like, for example, John McCain running against Bush this year. You would see a lot of republicans considering a vote for him regardless of his political affiliation. I would vote for him, so essentially he would be 'stealing my vote' from Bush. My situation is certainly different from yours Ryan, but I think you can see where the democrats may be worried. Ralph Nader is not going to get too many people to vote who wouldn't have voted anyway, so those votes have to come from somewhere and it's not going to be from republicans.

I agree that the democrats should be worried, but the last of their worries should be Nader. If they could produce a candidate who could carry the election by his own weight, they wouldn't have to worry.

As for vote stealing, most exit polls from 2000 show that while most votes for Nader came from otherwise democratic voters, the statistic isn't nearly as staggering as the democrats would like you to think. The demographic of Nader voters looked a lot more like 20% republican, 40% democratic, 40% other. With this knowledge, one can see that Nader did not "spoil" the election in 2000.

"Al From, chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, wrote in Blueprint Magazine (1-24-01) that according to their own exit polls, Bush would have beat Gore by one percentage point if Nader hadn’t run in 2000." Blueprint Magazine is published by the Democratic Leadership Council.

Our voting system is fundamentally flawed. It all but guarantees a two-party system. If in the 2004 presidential election you don't vote for either Democrat or Republican, your vote WILL go to waste. Yes, ideally it would count for something, but without some type of runoff-like system it won't. You can campaign for an independent in the run-up but if that candidate doesn't stand any realistic chance come vote time, one must be rational. Use logic and strategy when voting, it's a game like any other. If you would rather have Kerry in office than Bush, but rather Nader than Kerry, you should vote for Kerry.

"If you would rather have Kerry in office than Bush, but rather Nader than Kerry, you should vote for Kerry."

No, I should vote for what I believe in. You tell me this is a game and I should play it, but I *am* playing the game. I am not going to forfeit my vote for a candidate I don't care about in the office just to get Bush out. Here is why my vote counts even if it keeps Bush in office (especially if it keeps Bush in office!):

My vote for Nader sends a clear message to the democrats that they are doing something fundamentally wrong. It sends a message to them that they are not listening to what I and many others have to say on key issues. It tells the democrats that I won't settle for second best, for a president who is only slightly less corporate than our current president. If the democrats lose this election, it is because of just that, *they lost*. The democrats are *losing* votes, they are not being stolen.

Some things I've read and want to comment on:

#1. The Democratic Leadership Committee is actually a separate entity than the Democratic Party itself, the DNC. Playing the name game (like Bush's Leave no Child behind) makes it seem like it "Leads" the Dems. It doesn't. It is true that people at the head of the DNC run the DLC, like Terry McAuliffe and the Clinton's but the DLC was created in the mid 80's to put forth candidates that pushed THEIR ideologies and policies, which do not agree with many, many Dems. Clinton was their first candidate they put forward. Unfortunately, it has become the most powerful influence in the Dem Party, and has already began it's campaign for the first woman prez (Hillary the carpetbagger) by in essense, derailing Dems in the 2004 primaries (ie. Hillary campaigning AGAINST Dean in 2003). So, others can create an organization that, in effect, supports and elects officials VIA the Dem party.

#2 Personally, while working with the Dean campaign, I did find a candidate (and surprisingly a DEM!) that stood up for Americans and against ANY politician regardless of partisanship, if they did not help make America better. Also met many, many Americans that voted for Nader and realize that they DO NOT have to vote for a third party but can change the DEM party from within it. To quote one of them, "We will infiltrate the Dem Party on every level, local, state, and federal to slowly rebuild a party FOR the people."
Check out policies and blog
www.deanforamerica.com
www.blogforamerica.com

40% of Nader's votes going to Gore versus 20% going to Bush is significant because from what I understand, that would have tipped Florida. Anyone who did not vote for either Gore or Bush but would have rather had Gore win did not get their preference counted in that election. If you would rather have Kerry in office than Bush but don't vote for either, your vote is not represented. It does not send any kind of clear signal.

I think Hefner has the right idea. I don't expect any one candidate to perfectly align with my ideals, but it's an all or nothing election. It's better to get into office the guy who is more inline with your ideals than to allow someone else to win. From within the system, one can then argue for your individual issues to an audience that has your ear. A vote for Nader could mean so many things to the Democratic party, it's not a clear way to communicate, just like the "unvotes". Why keep people second guessing.

I should mention that I'm registered with a party that isn't the Democratic one but I am planning on voting Dem. I'll continue to advocate things I believe in but come Election Day I realize there are only two choices.

You can vote for the democrats and try to "change the party from the inside", but don't be suprised when you have a democrat in office who *doesn't* have your ear, who voted *for* the war and who voted *for* the patriot act.

I will give the democrats the kick in the ass they deserve while giving my candidate the chance to have federal campaign finance funding the next time around.

You forgot to add to Kerry's list:
For No Child Left Behind, For the billions to the war, Against the Iraq Invasion of the First Gulf War, Only voted 20% of the time over a 20 year period inside Washington. And Didn't even vote on the very important Medicaid bill, which creates pharmaceutical and insurance companies as the benefactors in the end.

Bush is still more detrimental to the future.

So, the process of nominating a candidate becomes that much more important b/c you can nominate someone WITHIN the party (not necessarily within Washington) that DOES have your ear. You don't take part in the primaries, then you're stuck with the nominee you get.

Voting on principles is good, and if you do it in the right strategic way within the system, you can change it. Think voting for Nader, or ANY third party will make certain Dems say, "wow, they voted for him, maybe we should change". Personally, I believe that to be highly unlikely. ((i remind you there are Dems that have similar views to the Green Party: Nader waited to see if Dean would get the nomination b/c he wouldn't have run if Dean got it))

To have a REALISTIC third party, such as Social Party, Labor Party, or Green Party, they must be brought into the nomination process, and debates. That can only come about if a Dem or Rep creates that change within the gov.

www.deanforamerica.com
www.blogforamerica.com

Other than Dean?? Listen to Kucinich for gosh sakes!!! He's practically got a platform for an entirely new, liberal, progressive party!! And he's a democrat.

...and he's tiny;)

Well the K man is all well and good if you believe everything scully and mulder say, but here in the *real* world we need *real* solutions to our *real* problems. If the government holds your hand everywhere you go, as dean and k would like it, when do you pee?

Oh yeah, I forgot

www.meforyourloyalleader.com

and also

www.smellyourhandandmakesureitwasn'tinthedemsasshole.com