Is Nader's Candidacy Bad for America? (explain your answer) (1 Viewer)

Nader?

  • Nader's candidacy is bad for America

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • Nader's candidacy is good for America

    Votes: 26 89.7%

  • Total voters
    29

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
72,543
Reaction score
124,954
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Consumer advocate Ralph Nader announced yesterday he's running for president, a move that isn't likely to put him in the White House but that could shave votes from the Democratic nominee in November's election.

"His being on the Green Party prevented Al Gore from being the greenest president we could have had and I think that's really unfortunate," Clinton told reporters on her campaign plane yesterday.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usdems255590663feb25,0,1644267.story


Hillary's point is interesting. Nader, running because he didn't think the the mainstream candidates were green enough, prevented Gore - who would have been the greenest president to date - from winning.

So is he well intended? Or is it something more diabolical?
 
Last edited:
He likes to hear his name in the news. Thats about all I can think of for the reason why he runs. Why isn't he out campaigning and debating with the others if he's serious about a real bid to the White House? Or, perhaps he just wants his issues to be heard and possibly reach few people, I'm not sure really
 
Irrelevant. At this point, Nadar has run so many times that he's got a little core of groupies that vote for him. The day when he could expand that group is long gone. Not even a drop in the bucket at this point.
 
Good-more choices the better.

Fair enough. But if you're at a dinner party and they're going to serve your entree based on the vote of the crowd- the choices are strip steak, prime rib and salmon - and you hate fish. Having two meat choices might mean you're eating fish.
 
It's good for America. When third party/independent candidates actually have the power influence elections, it will force the Democrats and Republicans to actually address issues that the American public wants addressed -- and in meaningful ways.
 
Bad. Even though he can't expand his base, he draws from young idealistic voters, college age that would normally vote Democrat. This can be and has been just enough to swing the election.

So in an effort to fight big business and push an environmental agenda, he has effectively prevented a candidate from winning that would have done just that.

I think he's a egotist. He can't win, and his running only pulls votes from the very causes he claims to support. So either, he has an unbelievably large ego or somebody better check his bank account to see what conservative group is bankrolling him.

Maybe the Dems could bankroll Ross Perot to run again. (or Ron Paul).
 
No candidacy is ever bad for America. The more voices in the debate the better. Politicians are products and like every product competition is good for the consumer.
 
Fair enough. But if you're at a dinner party and they're going to serve your entree based on the vote of the crowd- the choices are strip steak, prime rib and salmon - and you hate fish. Having two meat choices might mean you're eating fish.

Guess I am assed out.

Maybe most of America should make a better attempt at trying the salmon.:ezbill: :ezbill:
 
The more the merrier. Nader is probably 75% ego and 25% corporate hatred. He reached his apex in 2000 while running a good campaign. He dumped in 2004 and probably will again in 2008.

TPS
 
if the Dem party and the Rep party disappeared today, we would all be better off. I'm sure there was a day when people voted for a candidate not just a party. Who knows, maybe one day, that will happen agian. Its a shame that most people vote like this. Of course, we are a country of sheep.....
 
Hillary's point is interesting. Nader, running because he didn't think the the mainstream candidates were green enough, prevented Gore - who would have been the greenest president to date - from winning.

So is he well intended? Or is it something more diabolical?

He's isn't well intended nor is he diabolical. He's an egomaniac.

Hillary doesn't really have that good of a point. Nader didn't prevent anything. It was the people that voted for him that did. That might seem like splitting hairs but there is actually a distinction. Nader by himself didn't cause anything but obviously his message resonated enough with a group of constituents that felt neglected by both parties and could have either stayed home or voted for another protest candidate, either choice denying Gore those votes anyway.

If Gore would have taken care of business (read: winning either his home state or the home state of the outgoing President that was a member of the same party), this conversation doesn't happen.

The Dems need to stop looking for external boogeymen to explain their problems in the past two elections.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom