posted on April 4, 2004 11:12:43 AM new
From The Associated Press:
Apr 3, 7:26 PM EST
Liberal Leaders Urge Nader to Abandon Bid
By ELIZABETH WOLFE
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) --
Prominent liberals are pleading with third-party candidate Ralph Nader to abandon his "quixotic and destructive" presidential bid, warning that his presence in the race could ensure the re-election of President Bush.
Fifteen progressive and liberal activists, including leaders of Americans for Democratic Action and Council for a Livable World, sent a letter to Nader Thursday praising his work as consumer advocate but arguing that he cost Democrat Al Gore the 2000 election.
Nader's percentage of support in Florida and New Hampshire, if it had gone to Gore, would have secured those states and the presidency for the Democrat.
"You have done great things in your career as a consumer advocate and we applaud your work, but your presidential race in 2000 led to the most destructive administration we can remember in our 200-plus collective years of progressive advocacy," the letter said. Some signed as individuals, others as representatives of their groups.
Nader ran as the Green Party candidate in 2000 and is seeking the presidency this year as an independent, to the dismay of many Democrats who have appealed to him not to run.
posted on April 4, 2004 12:55:54 PM new
I had thought I saw him on an interview last week, saying that 'he's running to take away votes for Bush' (paraphrasing there ) I just caught a tiny part of it.
Either way, he does get what? or did? 2 or 3% of the vote? last time in 2000, so his running does have some kind of impact, but on which candidate, I have no idea.
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on April 4, 2004 02:15:00 PM new
NearTheSea - Nader took 2,882,955 votes in 2000. approx. 2.74%.
Nader's statements do sound like he thinks he'll take more votes from Bush this time around, even though it's the dems who are calling for him not to run.
Nader has said, when blamed for being the spoiler in 2000, that there were many factors that kept Gore from winning that election.
On Nader's website he says that: 21 - 25% of the votes he received in 2000 would have gone to Bush, had he not ran. While 38 - 41% would have gone to Gore. [You do the math ]
I haven't read if other third party candidates have decided to run or not. Like in 2000 Pat Buchanan received about 0.45 million votes. In a very close race all votes will matter. Nader believes he'll get strong support from young, new voters.
posted on April 4, 2004 06:07:03 PM new
Essentially I see Nader as a republican operative and a good one at that.
Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
posted on April 4, 2004 07:49:59 PM new
Linda, about any other third parties
Lyndon LaRouches people are handing out flyers downtown, my brother brought one over, I didn't read it all, he could be running..... all I got from the flyer is he IS out of jail now, and how he was 'wronged'.
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on April 4, 2004 08:55:33 PM newDemos know that if he goes to November they have lost...
That slim margin is all we lost by last time, and Dems who'll actually go vote rather than sleep too late are more motivated now. He may be hoping to pick up some of the GenX vote from Dean, but really, Nader's irrelevant. If he's the Repub's great white hope, it just shows you how shaky Bush's candidacy really is..
___________________________________
posted on April 5, 2004 06:17:21 AM new
NearTheSea - LOL @ LaRouches being out of jail now.
------
NTS and twelve - I agree Nader's 'left leaning' policies are much more like those of the democratic party than those of the Republican party.
Do you think he's as far left as kerry is?
I've read that many people voted for Nader in 2000 as a means of 'protesting'. It's not so much that they agreed with his 'left leaning' policies, but rather because they didn't like either choice in 2000. I was one of them, I'm embarassed to say. I won't be throwing away/wasting my vote this time though.
posted on April 5, 2004 01:32:25 PM new
I'm betting there are quite a few democrats who share your sentiments about not wasting their votes this time around too, linda.
___________________________________
posted on April 5, 2004 01:54:51 PM new
Linda! you voted for Nadar?
Its ok, no need to be embarrased!
just don't do it again.....
(if you just HAVE to vote for a third party VOTE LA ROUCHE, and help him 'fight the wrongs done against him!!!' LOL!)
Ok, seriously here. At the Dem Convention (not sure when it is either) cannot another person come in, even though Kerry won all these delegate votes?? Say like, Hillary jumping in, I've heard that talked about so much, that she *could* do that, I wonder if it could happen?
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on April 5, 2004 05:03:48 PM new
profe - That's true on both sides [more coming out to vote], at least from what I've read about how both sides are registering new voters.
....and then there's the dems who say they're voting republican and republicans who say they won't vote for Bush.
) I just caught a tiny part of it.
]
I won't be throwing away/wasting my vote this time though.