Page 1 of 2
Ralph Nader Announces Presidential Bid
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:14 am
by Baconsticks
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/ ... _impa.html
Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate, said today that he will run for president again.
Nader, who played a spoiler's role in the presidential election of 2000, said today on NBC News' Meet the Press that he is ready to run again in 2008.
"I have decided to run for president,'' said Nader, who, at 73, is a couple of years older than the likely Republican nominee, John McCain.
Nader is voicing a familiar refrain: Maintaining that most Americans are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican Parties, and that none of the presidential candidates address ways to combat corporate crime and waste within the Pentagon waste and to promote labor rights.
Nader ran as a third-party candidate in 2000 and 2004.
And many Democrats will never forgive him for the role he played in 2000, when his marginal share of the vote in Florida likely cost Democrat Al Gore victory in a razor-thin, disputed vote.
The days of a third-party candidate claiming a large share of the American vote -- such as the nearly 20 percent that H. Ross Perot won in 1992, playing a role that many Republicans will never forget -- may be gone.
Yet, with elections contested on the margins in many states -- from Iowa to Wisconsin, and from New Hampshire to Florida in recent years -- any active third-party candidacy could have an impact on the Electoral College balance.
And already this year, sizeable numbers of people have voiced discontent with the leading candidates -- discontent manifested in the campaign of Republican Ron Paul, for instance. So the question looms this year: Might Nader play the spoiler once more?
Not again...
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:18 am
by Ibun
/facepalm
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:31 am
by Cosmic^Chicory
Guess Nader thought the Democrats might win this time.
I still remember in 2000, when so many people voted for Nader, thereby giving Bush the election, because, get this, Al Gore *wasn't enviromental enough*.
Ya.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:32 am
by Arloest
Idiot.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:57 am
by Tarukai
Dear god IT'S HAPPENING AGAAAAIIIN!
*clutches head and falls onto floor in fetal position*
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:17 am
by klimt
meh. if ron paul ends up running as a indipendent, they should pretty well cancel each other out.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:22 am
by osprey
ugh
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:55 pm
by GeorgiaCoyote
No surprise hear. I could see that one coming from a mile away. What really turned my stomach was the story I heard awhile back that politician and general nutcase Cynthia McKinney was considering accepting a nomination from the green party to run as President. Surely the green party has more sense than that.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:41 pm
by Tom Flapwell
Last time around, Nader was getting money from the GOP. Obviously they too believed that he was their partner in the race.
This time around, I like to think he won't make the difference. He simply has too little clout. Even Democrats who hate Clinton or Obama would sooner vote for McCain.
BTW, "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" was mathematically incorrect. It's more like half a vote for Bush. Think about it.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:01 pm
by CameronCN
And in conclusion, I hate you all.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:27 pm
by Tom Flapwell
Aw, don't feel that way, Cam. We don't hate you for your political difference.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:56 pm
by rabid_fox
I swear to god, one day, I'll live somewhere that lets me vote.
One day.
Until then, I shall chortle at Nader's name.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:59 pm
by CameronCN
Aw, don't feel that way, Cam. We don't hate you for your political difference.
Well, obviously I'm being tongue-in-cheek.
But it DOES really annoy me when people blast Nader just because he has the temerity to RUN FOR PRESIDENT in a DEMOCRACY without sucking up to the two main parties. I mean, sure, he's a lunatic, but if he wants to run and people want to vote for him, that's their right!
I just get mad at the stupid partisan prejudice against him. Not because I like him, because I think he's an idiot.
The whole fear of having a "spoiler" is one of the things about our democratic culture that most makes me want to go out and start socking people.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:31 pm
by CodeCat
Heh... and the US still calls itself the 'biggest democracy'. If people can't even be voted for without being accused of 'stealing votes', then it's not democracy. It's just a political aristocracy all over again.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:09 pm
by nickspoon
Well, obviously I'm being tongue-in-cheek.
But it DOES really annoy me when people blast Nader just because he has the temerity to RUN FOR PRESIDENT in a DEMOCRACY without sucking up to the two main parties. I mean, sure, he's a lunatic, but if he wants to run and people want to vote for him, that's their right!
I just get mad at the stupid partisan prejudice against him. Not because I like him, because I think he's an idiot.
The whole fear of having a "spoiler" is one of the things about our democratic culture that most makes me want to go out and start socking people.
The US Democratic system is a failure. In the UK, there is no such thing as a 'spoiler' candidate. Maybe this is because of our rubbish first-past-the-post, elected-by-the-minority system (I'm not saying it's ideal, just that it's better), but if through all this complicated process you can't make the candidate that most people want to win win, then it's all for nothing.