Nader highlights poll showing
Ralph Nader's campaign is trying to capitalize on his showing in a new national poll to argue that he might be on the stage for presidential debates and to seek more money needed to get on ballots.
In the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted June 4-5, Democrat Barack Obama had 47 percent, Republican John McCain had 43 percent, and Nader had 6 percent -- "with virtually no mainstream national press coverage," the consumer activist's campaign told supporters today. (Without Nader in the race, Obama leads 49 percent to 46 percent.)
The 6 percent is an important threshold, Nader's camp notes, because most debate organizers require at least 5 percent to invite a candidate.
"Remember, getting Ralph on the debates changes everything," the email to supporters says. Jesse Ventura, when he ran for Governor of Minnesota, was at ten percent. He got on the statewide debates and moved to 20 percent. And then people sensed a three way race. And he won. As we learned this weekend at the Belmont Stakes. There are no foregone conclusions."
"And then it becomes important that he gets on as many state ballots as possible," the email says, then asking for as much as $4,600 for those petition drives.
Nader's campaign hopes to get on 10 ballots by the end of June and 40 by the end of the summer.
I understand what he's trying to accomplish but do we REALLY need thousands more of our soldiers to die to make his point? Seriously if you want what's best for the country change the government from within rather than making us fall prey to yet another 4 years of lies and warmongering.
Stay home in 08 Nader!
Include Ralph Nader in national debates, interviews, and provide an open forum so he can elaborate on his Presidential platform. Democrats and Republicans have received ample coverage during this campaign, it is time for voters to hear and see Ralph Nader, so people can know what the real difference is between the candidates, and who truly represents them, and not corporate interests. www.votenader.org
Nader's VP running mate, Matt Gonzalez, began his 2003 campaign for mayor of San Francisco at 6% in the polls. After he got in the debates with Democratic rival Gavin Newsom (who outspent Gonzalez 8-1 and had to have Bill Clinton flown to campaign for him), Gonzalez won 47% of the vote.
Big things have small beginnings.
Jurgen Rommel Vsych
Nader/Gonzalez Campaign Filmmaker
I don't get these findings. Why should Nader hurt McCain more than Obama, even if the differences are probably statistically insignificant?
Who else could I honestly vote for besides Ralph Nader?
Please only vote for Nader if it's clear the war-monger McCain can't win. Innocent civilians' lives are very much at stake in this election.
why isn,t nader running on the grfeen-party ticket?
Nader = McCain. We've already had a Nader Presidency - that was called President W.
Dear LM,
Here's the AP story on the poll.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijClHoidEl8XEJMJoUooHU1R_nmgD914PTMGA
THE NUMBERS
Barack Obama, 47 percent
John McCain, 43 percent
Ralph Nader, 6 percent
OF INTEREST:
If Nader, the independent, is not included, Obama's lead is 49 percent to 46 percent. About one in five voters say they may change their minds.
So with Nader in the race, Obama has a four point spread on McCain. Without Nader in the race, Obama has a three point spread on McCain. This kind of blows your spoiler theory out of the water. It'd behoove you to think on your own and not through talking points.
Sometimes I wish there were two concurrent elections. The first one where one should vote for Obama, so McCain will not win, and we will not be saddled with four more years of Republican hell.
A second one, where we can vote with our hearts and admiration----a vote for Nader.
Just a question, could Hillary run as an independent.
Ralph Nader and Obama should debate. Let's see how far right Obama will shift. If Kerry had taken on Nader's issues instead of working hard to drive Nader off of the ballots to kill his anti-war message, John would have won.
If the self-proclaimed democrats don't vote for the republican (an actual logical cause of Gore's defeat, among other non-spoiler factors), and the Obama ticket steals Nader's issues, then they might have a chance of stealing some of Nader's votes.
Remember when they wouldn't let Nader even sit in a closed viewing area at the debates with ticket in hand? How about publicly financed open debates for a change? Everyone with a mathematical chance of winning presidency (on enough ballots) should be in the debates. Period.
Nader's run is proving the roadblocks to true democracy. Listen to what Nader/Gonzales has to say, and stop working so hard to prevent others from hearing their ideas. Let the candidates earn their votes in a FAIR ARENA... http://www.vimeo.com/1009059
Frank Cornelius,
To address your point - check out Instant Runoff Voting. I believe Cambridge uses IRV to elect its city government.
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=241
We need to get IRV at state level and then on to national level.
I think that the debates should be opened up to third-party candidates, including Nader, Green Party and Libertarian Party candidates. That's what democracy is all about.
Another thing that I've found very disappointing is how the MSM - including Boston Globe and its team of op-ed contributors - have not reported on what's happening in the Green Party vis-a-vis the presidential election. There seems to be a blackout of political news if it's not Dem or Rep, with some exception of posts on Nader. Why so? I don't think a newspaper is supposed to function that way.
These op-ed contributors and journalists wrote about sexism in the media when it came to Hillary Clinton, but don't bother to look at themselves and their own biases. Maybe they should write about Cynthia McKinney and other candidates.
Another thing is that we in Massachusetts don't really have to worry about the "spoiler" factor - not that I agree with that assertion in the first place. The state is guaranteed to go to the Democrat candidate (Obama), so some of us can vote for Nader or Green Party (or any other third party) to help them get 5% votes which ensures public funds and ballot access next time.
Ralph Nader is not admirable any more. He is self-obsessed and has not kept his thinking and policy prescriptions up to date. Worst, he has become a one-note pony. If you substitute the word "corporations" for "terrorists," his speeches look just as Manichean as Bush's or Cheney's. All the ills of the world have a single source, and you're either with us or against us. Puerile.
Similarly, voting for him now is not an act of committed citizenship...it's arrested adolescence. If the Nader voters help throw a critical swing state to McCain instead of Obama, they have failed to understand (as he fails) that "the perfect is the enemy of the good." Although Nader is far from perfect.
What is it about Nader's detractors that they so often resort to ad hominem attacks? Jon (#17), for example, claims that Nader is "self-obsessed" and that his voters suffer from "arrested adolescence." Inevitably, when you encounter people who repeat these tired claims (which, by the way, were introduced into the discourse after focus group testing by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg), they seem to have lost their capacity to think critically about the issue. Jon thus calls Nader "Manichean" because his overriding focus is on corporate power and the myriad ways it has perverted our democratic processes and distorted our social priorities generally. But Nader supports this critique with decades of analysis and writing on the subject, in which he has meticulously documented the deleterious effects of corporate power on our everyday lives, from the home to the roads to the workplace. Nader's foray into the electoral arena is a logical and direct extension of his work as a consumer advocate. Nader is now acting as consumer advocate for voters, exposing the failure of our political process to respond to the needs of the people.
It's really depressing to see how people just keep on parroting mass media propaganda without giving it any thought at all... "Nader spoiler"... "Nader crazy"... "Nader self-obsessed"... Yet, watching any random youtube video (because you won't see him anywhere else...) of Nader and it's obvious that Nader's *far* from crazy, on the contrary, he's very smart, much smarter than most... I won't even mention the "self-obsessed" completely baseless argument... It's too ridiculous to be addressed.
The whole spoiler thing is just good old scapegoating... "Bush got elected because of one single person and it's Nader" is such a sophistic oversimplification... If it were true, that indeed a single person was responsible of an election, then the election process would be completely pointless. By *definition* and election is comprised of many different steps and a an overall design that gives everyone a chance.
By yeah, it's easier to blame someone else for you problems than to look at yourself in the mirror. In the 60's people got out on the streets and stopped the Vietnam war... Now they stay in their couch, front of their 40 inch flat screens, and blame Nader... Then they tell me I have to be "realistic." The only problem: their "reality" is FOX and Co.
Those "realistic" people remind me of a bird who lived in a cage for too long... Comes along someone like Nader who opens the cage's door, yet the bird doesn't come out, too afraid to fly, it stay in there and calls the cage "reality." Then that bird tells any other bird who wants to fly out that it's "crazy"...
I won't stay in the cage with you Mr. "realistic," no way...
TURN OFF YOUR TV
To the first comment on this page. If you voted for Nader first off, instead of being scared and voting dems, then we wouldn't be at war and thousands of soliders would not be killed.
Think about it like this. If you add up the number of soliders killed, multiply that times infinity if you never vote someone like Nader into office.
The corporate control of Washington will guarantee that many more wars continue into the future. Time for someone like Nader to put a stop to it!
Anybody who brings anti-war policies and politics of non-intervention is being called crazy or worse. It's time journalism returns to its principles and re-starts reporting and let voters decide.
70% of US people want us out of Iraq. 70% of Iraqis want us out of there. Why do we have to keep military bases in Iraq and 3000 employees in US Embassy in Baghdad?
Nader would be good as he is against the war and pro American people.
I voted for Nader in 2000 and again in 2004, and I would never consider for voting for the corporate, opportunists in the Democratic Party. If not Nader, I would vote socialist or some other working-class politician that represents my interests and not corporate America. It continually surprises me that members of the Democratic Party can possibly claim ownership of my vote and think that they have the right to tell my choice of candidate not to run. Some of these same "Democrats" criticize other countries for their lack of democratic rights, yet they have the nerve to try to restrict democracy here in the United States.
I don't vote Democrat BECAUSE I'm anti-war and want to curb corporate power. Democrats have consistently funded the war and been at the bidding of corporate America all along. The Democrats offer NO opposition to the Republicans, which is what we need.
Nader really deserves to be in full debate opportunity with Democrats & Rebublicans. Let me re-phrase that....... America deserves to hear Ralph Nader
in active debate with the Dems and GOP......
Without Ralph Nader...its ho-hum politics...more of the same....he (Ralph Nader) offers REAL CHANGE...
Nader really deserves to be in full debate opportunity with Democrats & Rebublicans. Let me re-phrase that....... America deserves to hear Ralph Nader
in active debate with the Dems and GOP......
Without Ralph Nader...its ho-hum politics...more of the same....he (Ralph Nader) offers REAL CHANGE...
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com
browse this blog
by categoryINside Boston.com