Remember: Don't vote for Nader unless you intend to vote for Bush

Hayley

Could really use a trip to FantasyLand right about
Joined
Jan 31, 2000
Messages
1,605
Forgive me if you've already covered this (you guys really do a good job of covering everything!)

Did everyone see this in Newsweek? Is <i>anyone</i> surprised? :scratchin

<b>Try to Guess Who's Backing Nader
___Holly Bailey

In his run for the white House, Ralph Nader is getting help from an unexpected source: Republicans. Of the $1 million that Nader has raised for his campaign so far, about $50,000 is from donors who have also given to President George W. Bush's campaign. One in 10 of Nader's biggest contributors--individuals who've written checks of $1,000 or more--are longtime GOP donors. Among the notable: Richard Egan, Bush's former ambassador to Ireland. Egan raised more than $100,000 as a Bush Pioneer in 2000 and at least $200,000 this cycle as one of the Rangers, the Bush campaign's most elite fund-raising circle. In 2001 Egan contributed $100,000 of his own money to help pay for Bush's Inauguration, while he and his family rank among the biggest contributors to the Republican Party in general, giving nearly $1 million to the GOP since 1999, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And according to Nader's campaign-finance reports, Egan, his son John and his daughter-in-law Pamela each contributed the maximum $2,000 donation to Nader's effort. Egan declined to comment to NEWSWEEK. Another $2,000 contributor to Nader was Houston businessman and longtime Bush-family pal Nijad Fares, the son of Lebanese Deputy Prime Minister Issam Fares. In 2000 Fares gave $200,000 to the Bush Inaugural fund. "Republicans are giving money to Nader because they want to prop up his candidacy," says Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe.

Republicans and conservative groups in battleground states including Oregon, Florida, Wisconsin and Michigan are also working to get Nader on the ballot this November. Democrats have sued to keep him off the ticket in Arizona, where, according to the state's Democratic Party, half of the 10,000 registered voters who signed petitions last month to get Nader on the ballot were Republicans. The state GOP committees in Michigan and Florida have announced efforts to collect signatures to get Nader on the ballot in those states. Meanwhile, in Oregon, two conservative groups--the Oregon Family Council and Citizens for a Sound Economy--financed phone calls to GOP voters encouraging them to attend a recent Nader nominating convention. CSE, which is headed by former Republican House majority leader Dick Armey, plans to take its campaign to other states. Nader last week rejected calls to disavow Republican efforts on his part, telling reporters that GOPers aren't doing much to help his insurgent campaign. Yet he seems to find some inspiration in his new supporters, telling the crowd at a recent rally, "I think I'll end up taking more votes away from Republicans than Democrats."
The Buck stops here: GOP donors such as Egan (right) are contributing to Nader's campaign</b>
 
:confused:

I thought in a real democracy, people are supposed to vote for the person they most want to vote for, regardless of what anyone else says?

I've always voted libertarian in the past. Yes, deep down I know that the odds of a libertarian candidate winning are pretty slim, but I vote for what I belive in, not for someone I don't like just so that someone else does not have votes "taken away".
 
I was so disappointed that Nader thru in this election - He got Bush elected in 2000 - He may be a good man, with good ideas - but he won't win - all he'll do is take votes away from Kerry/Edwards, which we can't afford this year.... No wonder the Republicans are backing him....
 
I don't recall the Democrats squealing this loudly when Perot was taking votes from Bush 41 and Dole. If they had no problem with a third party candidate back then, they shouldn't have one now.
 

Originally posted by Grog
I don't recall the Democrats squealing this loudly when Perot was taking votes from Bush 41 and Dole. If they had no problem with a third party candidate back then, they shouldn't have one now.
And does this really surprise you, Grog? I know it doesn't surprise me.
 
Of course everyone should vote for whoever they want -- and third party candidates are fine by me. I just think everyone should be clear about what's going on here. Be an educated voter, that's all.
 
When did we become a 2 party system?
Your either Leftist or Righty and there is no space in between?
Vote for who you believe represents your interests.
 
Originally posted by edcrbnsoul
When did we become a 2 party system?
Your either Leftist or Righty and there is no space in between?

Unfortunately, we've been a two party system for a long time. I hate it, I rail against it, I vote against it, but it is a two party system. It's all about the Benjamins.
 
Originally posted by edcrbnsoul
When did we become a 2 party system?
Your either Leftist or Righty and there is no space in between?
Vote for who you believe represents your interests.

No problem! You're right! It just looks to me like there are some Republicans giving to Nader because it serves their interests in a shady way!:)

Once again, vote for who you you believe in! But be informed.
 
Be an educated voter, that's all.


well it looks like your trying to read the minds of the independant voter?
how do you know that if Ralph wasnt running they would vote for Kerry?
did you ever stop and think that maybe just maybe,if Kerry did a better job at reaching out to those voters they wouldnt go 3rd party?

btw, heres a good one, come NOV about 200,000,000 people will be able to vote,only about 100,000,000 will.
watch the numbers,its going to be about 55% of the people who can, will vote.
all Kerry, (or Bush for that matter) have to do is get an extra 1,000,000 people to vote and it doesnt matter how many votes a 3rd party candidate gets.
dont look for excuses for a loss when it can all be prevented by getting people to vote.

1 last thing, dont blame a 3rd party candidate whos not even going to be on the ballot in a few states.

heres a link from the 2000 election,it might help people to better understand the numbers.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
 
Here's the problem with third part candidates. They have a ZERO chance of winning. I think when you have two candidates fighting for, say, 94% of the country's vote, any vote for a third party is in vain. Yes, you conscience tells you to vote your heart because it's the right thing. But this late in the game, there arew only two possible winners.
Now think, If you would prefer, even just as little bit, one of the Big Two over the other, that's where your vote should go. Florida proved to everyone that elections can be extremely close. Imagine that your state was won by 100 votes for the candidate you liked least of all. Now imagine if just a handful of idealists that voted third party had not voted so. It might actually change the results of the election.
If even 2000 people in Florida, a VERY small number election-wise, voted there SECOND choice (presumably Gore) instead of Nader, Gore would have won.
Democratic ideals are fine and dandy. But if there are only going to be 2 candidates that can possibly win, then voting third part is like not voting at all.

Dems, think REAL hard. If you are voting for Nader instead of Kerry, you might help Bush get re-elected. Now what weighs heavier on your conscience: Voting your conscience or possibly helping Bush get re-elected by not voting for Kerry.
Reps, think REAL hard. If your voting Nader instead of Bush (quite a leap, isn't it?) the you might be helping Kerry win over Bush. Yeah, that's a less likely scenario. But it's still possible when an electin can be won by 500 votes in one state.

Honestly, I would prefer a third party candidate that moved Americans to really want him over the other two and have all of them tied 33-33-33%. Then the 3rd party candidate would really matter. Unless the third party has a realistic chance of winning the election, all it does is persuade votes away from one of the top 2 and may even decide the election.
 
Originally posted by GaryAdams
well it looks like your trying to read the minds of the independant voter?
how do you know that if Ralph wasnt running they would vote for Kerry?
did you ever stop and think that maybe just maybe,if Kerry did a better job at reaching out to those voters they wouldnt go 3rd party?


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

nope - looks like you're trying to read <i>my</i> mind. Just putting some information out there.....do with it what you like:D .
 
Let me put it another way.

Imagine there is a lottery where you have to pick a number between 1 and 20. You are told that there is a 94% liklihood that the winning number will between 1 and 4. Can you honestly say that you'd pick 15 knowing you had virtually no chance of winning by doing so? Wouldn't you say you were just throwing away your chance to win that lottery?

Bush and Kerry are between 1 and 4. Nader is somewhere out in the teens. If you're voting past number 4, you're pretty much assuring that your vote has been cast into the abyss.
 
notice the ? after each sentence.

i was asking questions,you started a thread and titled it

Remember: Dont vote for Nader unless you intend to vote for Bush


perhaps if you had titled the thread different,people wouldnt have to ask questions.

information is 1 thing,telling people that if they vote 3rd party they are voting for Bush is different.
 
I read the data and it is interesting. Let's take the extreme example. There were 8 states where Nader's votes could have made the difference if they were all, or nearly all, cast for the candidate that lost that particular state. In that instance, Bush would have gained 32 electoral votes and Gore would have gained 37. That would not have swung the election, correct. But that is the extreme example. That would not reflect real life. The one thing the data does not take into account is the LIKELIHOOD of Bush or Gore states that would have switched. I thin it much more likely that Gore states would have and Bush states would not have. And in 2000, only ONE state mattered in the end. Do wqe have any data which says what Nader voters would have likely done had Nader not been on the ticket?

But consider this. Nader is for fighting big business and protecting the environment. Bush is, as told by Dems, to be in the back pocket of big business and not much of a friend to environmentalists. If you are voting for Nader on his major platform, you certainly aren't picking Bush (on the whole) as your second choice. They aren't very similar to each other at all.

Kerry is more of an environmentalist. I don't know where he stands on big business. But I imagine he's less for big business than Bush is. In light of that, Nader votes would most likely, though not always, go to Kerry. And if Kerry lost one state because of those votes, say Florida, it could turn the election.

If your a Dem supporter, do you really want to take that chance?
 
I found this QUITE interesting...
http://2act.org/p/663.html


The % of Nader voters that would have voted for Bush/Gore in a a two-way race:
Gore Bush
47% 21% VNS, largest sample
47% 24% CBS, sample = 85
30% 15% NES, sample = 33.
38% 25% Democratic exit poll
Dem Rep
45% 21% Nader voters / House candidates (NES)
52% 12% Nader voters / Senate candidates (NES)

Nader cites the Democratic poll most often because it indicates the least damage. But it is also one of the least if not the least reliable. Even if the poll is the best indication of Florida voters, without Nader, Gore would have gotten 13% of 97,000 more votes thatn Bush from Nader voters, and would have won by 12,000 votes instead of losing by 537.
 
I thought in a real democracy, people are supposed to vote for the person they most want to vote for, regardless of what anyone else says?

That is true, but in fact the United States is not a Democracy, if we were our current President would be named Al Gore. The United States is a Republic and it's voting system is much more complicated than just a "popular vote" and the majority wins.

The fact is, George W. Bush won the 2000 election by a margin of votes that was most likely under 3,000 voters with Florida being the key. He did in fact lose the Popular election on a nationwide basis.

Haley is just trying to point out that the traditional Nadar voter has values that are more aligned with the Democratic party than with the Republican party. Their votes are VERY important and if they cast them for a canidate who has no chance of winning, they very well might be helping the Republican party win. I think it is very true, especially if they live in a battleground state, that they need to think long and hard about what the true effect of their vote might actually achieve if they vote for Ralph Nadar.

It is true that Perot had a similar effect upon the Dole campaign and that is a good point.
 
Originally posted by Toby'sFriend
That is true, but in fact the United States is not a Democracy, if we were our current President would be named Al Gore. The United States is a Republic and it's voting system is much more complicated than just a "popular vote" and the majority wins.

The fact is, George W. Bush won the 2000 election by a margin of votes that was most likely under 3,000 voters with Florida being the key. He did in fact lose the Popular election on a nationwide basis.

Haley is just trying to point out that the traditional Nadar voter has values that are more aligned with the Democratic party than with the Republican party. Their votes are VERY important and if they cast them for a canidate who has no chance of winning, they very well might be helping the Republican party win. I think it is very true, especially if they live in a battleground state, that they need to think long and hard about what the true effect of their vote might actually achieve if they vote for Ralph Nadar.

It is true that Perot had a similar effect upon the Dole campaign and that is a good point.

Do you have neutral, unbiased sources to back up this information, because according to at least 4 major news outlets, inlcuding the rather left leaning New York Times, Bush, did , in fact, win the 2000 election ?
 
To back up what opinion? That Gore won the popular vote? I didn't think that was a controversial fact -- let me google a bit for you

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
There are thousands of other sources if you wish to look for yourself.

If you don't feel like clicking -
Bush - 50,456,002
47.87%

Gore - 50,999,897
48.38%

Nadar - 2,882,955
2.74%

and there are various other miscellaneous canidates also.

as you can see Chart 1 is the Popular vote which Gore won and Chart 3 is the Electoral Vote which Bush won. There is no doubt that Bush "won" the election. As I said the United States is not a Democracy and the election results are not directly tied to the Popular vote.
 















Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top