Democrats fear Nader could tip the balance

[Cowperson]

A New York Times story indicating the candidacy of Ralph Nader could be a decisive element in the coming USA election.

Despite a concerted effort by Democrats to derail his independent candidacy, as well as his being struck off the Pennsylvania ballot on Wednesday, Mr. Nader will be on the ballots in more than 30 states.

Polls show that he could influence the outcomes in nine by drawing support from Mr. Kerry. They are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Wisconsin.

Moreover, six - Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Wisconsin - were among the top 20 where Mr. Nader drew his strongest support in 2000. If the vote for Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry is as evenly divided as the polls suggest, the electoral votes in any one of those states could determine who becomes president.

The interesting question is, "Should Ralph Nader be allowed to have his name on the ballot?"

For Canadians, that would be a no-brainer as "YES!!" but it's not that simple in the USA where the two party system is entrenched.

You may have to register to view this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/politics...artner=homepage

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

I wonder why Nader even bothers.

Is there any consolation in the U.S. system for finishing last? At least in Canada, you can win a few seats and get a voice in Parliament, but unless I am mistaken, Nader and his party/faction/supporters do not get anything.

All he does is make it easier for Bush to win, which you would think (given his political leanings) would be the last thing he would want.

[badnarik]

badnarik could tilt it back the other way

http://www.nysun.com/article/2672

[Hockey_Rules_22]

I don't like Bush or Kerry, so I'll be voting for Nader. If he's not on the ballot in my town, I won't be voting. Don't want to vote for bush or kerry.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Conroy_Chick@Oct 15 2004, 03:05 PM
I don't like Bush or Kerry, so I'll be voting for Nader. If he's not on the ballot in my town, I won't be voting. Don't want to vote for bush or kerry.

Wow.

Funny - having seen two of the three debates I have seen two different people. I cannot imagine someone who doesn't identify with even one or two parts of the candidates.

If you're a way lefty, it still makes sense to vote for Kerry, as it strengthens Bush's standing, which means you get even further away from your desired target.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Oh yes the ABB reasoning.

[Homer_J]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 15 2004, 04:02 AM
For Canadians, that would be a no-brainer as "YES!!" but it's not that simple in the USA where the two party system is entrenched.

I am by no means an expert when it comes to American politics (or any politics for that matter), but why is this the case? Why has a third party never been able to gain a presence in the States?


Conroy Chick's post reminded me of another classic Simpson's moment. The episode where Kang and Kodos are Clin-ton and Gore.

Kang: You have to vote for one of us!

Random citizen: I'll vote for a third party candidate.

Kodos: HA HA HA!... Go ahead, throw away your vote!

Hilarious.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

In the 2000 Election, Bush supporters actually bought airtime for Nader in states where it was too close to call. I would expect the same thing this time around in the places where Bush and Kerry are neck and neck.

How I'd love a televangelist to run for president so he could take away votes from the GOP.