Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Dreamland 12

Journal by pudge

Ralph Nader wants people to believe that he is going to siphon more conservative votes from Bush than he will liberal votes from Kerry.

Is Nader crazy? I ask the question seriously. His views are largely anthema to conservatism. Go on down the list of his views, and they are things conservatives stand against. And if he were really hoping to appeal to conservatives, why select someone as his running mate, who is even less conservative? Peter Camejo ran as a Green for governor in California last year, and as a Socialist for President at one point. The only second- or third-tier party less conservative than the Greens in this country is the Socialists.

I can only conclude he is either insane or just lying when he says he is going to pull votes away from Bush. If conservative voters really feel like they can't vote for Bush, they will likely vote for a conservative or libertarian third party, or just stay home. Nader won't be a factor.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dreamland More

Dreamland

Comments Filter:
  • I think that a conservative might vote for Nader for several reasons. The first that comes to mind is to show support for a 3rd party (any 3rd party) and to protest Nader's exclusion from the debates.
    • As pudge said, there are plenty of other candidates to vote for to show support for third parties who are far more conservative-leaning than Nader is.
      • Nader is the only 3rd party candidate with wide-spread enough support to merit inclusion in the debates. Therefore people who might not otherwise support him might vote for him in order to open the door to eventual inclusion of their own nutty candidates.
        • But the vote comes after the debate. If there were a way to support Nader in a way that might help him into the debates, that's one thing. I just don't see it.
          • His inclusion in the debates depends on the poll numbers. So supporting his campaign will help the poll numbers. Also if he keeps running until he is 100, voting for him time and again might make sense since you expect him to run again, and good numbers in one election might help him achieve good numbers in the next one and he can point to past elections as evidence of support while arguing for inclusion.

            From a more cynical point of view, some conservatives could strategically vote for Nader in order to

            • His inclusion in the debates depends on the poll numbers. So supporting his campaign will help the poll numbers.

              But that's my point: we're talking about voting, not support prior to voting. Voting won't help him get in the debates, which will be over by then.

              if he keeps running until he is 100, voting for him time and again might make sense since you expect him to run again, and good numbers in one election might help him achieve good numbers in the next one

              That's not how third parties have worked in
    • I lean to the conservative. To be honest, I'm all over the board -- but overall, I lean conservative.

      In 2000, I voted for Nader. More specifically, I voted for the Green Party. I was hoping to help give the Green's enough votes to qualify for federal matching funds. There are many issues the Greens have that I think they are just off their respective rockers -- but there are a FEW I would like to hear voiced. And neither the Ds or the Rs appear willing to discuss those issues.

      I was expecting this tim
    • Policy is not why a conservative would vote for Nader.

      1. Federal matching funds next time around.
      2. I'd rather see the green party take off to divide the libs (might wind up with a more moderate Democrat party that way). Once there is a three party system seeing the Republicans break into Republicans and possibley Libertarian would not be a big concern. But I'd prefer to see the left split first.
      3. Were I in a strong conservative state I would probably vote Nader before voting any other party since Nader
      • Basically the only reason I can see Nader getting votes from conservatives is because they are sure their state will go for Bush and are trying to be tactical for 2008 purposes.

        Bush or Kerry, that is. The same principle holds in Texas and Massachusetts: a vote for anyone -- Kerry, Nader, Bush -- is symbolic. I voted Browne in '96 in MA because I was ticked off at Dole and the GOP, and I knew a vote for Dole in MA meant jack squat. :-) But yeah, that can happen, but if Nader only gets those "irrelevant"
  • In the last week of the campaign, is he going to campaign in clearly-decided states, as would make strategic sense? Or is he going to hit swing states again like he did in 2000, for the only apparent goal of being a spoiler?
  • Ralph Nader wants people to believe that he is going to siphon more conservative votes from Bush than he will liberal votes from Kerry.

    To be precise (pedantic?) the only assumption I see Nader directly making is in the last sentence of the piece, "Nader insists that he will also draw votes from conservatives and independents upset with the president." Which is not the samy as saying he will siphon more conservative than liberal votes.

    However, regarding that claim, I read an article in a local progressiv
    • Which is not the samy as saying he will siphon more conservative than liberal votes.

      No, that is his claim. That is how he defends his candidacy as reasonable to the Democrats: he's saying he won't hurt Kerry, he'll hurt Bush.

      in those counties he actually took more votes from Bush than from Gore

      The claim is specious.

      Ah well, I have a few months to make up my mind still.

      No! You must decide now! NO INTROSPECTION ALLOWED! :-)

Slashdot Top Deals

Surprise due today. Also the rent.

Close