spf
Scrapple Level: 144
Posts: 2786/5410 EXP: 35857904 For next: 852490
Since: 2.1.02 From: The Las Vegas of Canada
Since last post: 3069 days Last activity: 404 days
| #1 Posted on 9.7.04 0943.22 Reposted on: 9.7.11 0945.16 | You know, it's not the sneakiness of this move that annoys me. It's all politics and everyone plays to win at all costs. It's the disingenuousness of this quote from this article (story.news.yahoo.com)
Originally posted by Greg McNeilly of the MI GOP Unlike the Democratic Party, where 'D' stands for disenfranchisement, we want voters to have choices.
Promote this thread! | | Roy.
Pepperoni Level: 70
Posts: 271/1040 EXP: 2872717 For next: 143109
Since: 25.2.04 From: Keystone State
Since last post: 5801 days Last activity: 1765 days
| #2 Posted on 9.7.04 1002.42 Reposted on: 9.7.11 1003.01 | These Guys (citizensforethics.org) have filed complaints with the FEC against conservative groups doing this in Oregon and have even filed a complaint against the Bush/Cheney campaign itself. I'm not sure anything has come of the complaints. Click Here (story.news.yahoo.com) | DrDirt
Banger Level: 106
Posts: 945/2743 EXP: 12422216 For next: 249768
Since: 8.10.03 From: flyover country
Since last post: 2346 days Last activity: 2247 days
| #3 Posted on 9.7.04 1126.15 Reposted on: 9.7.11 1128.19 | How is this illegal. Pretty smart move if you ask me. It also shows the fear in the eyes of the Republicans. | The Lurk
Cotechino Level: 23
Posts: 33/83 EXP: 64313 For next: 3411
Since: 7.6.04
Since last post: 7181 days Last activity: 7181 days
| #4 Posted on 9.7.04 1135.08 Reposted on: 9.7.11 1135.33 | Originally posted by DrDirt How is this illegal. Pretty smart move if you ask me. It also shows the fear in the eyes of the Republicans.
I don't know if it shows fear, exactly. But it is a brilliant political tactic. Disengenuous? Yes. Illegal? No.
Republicans realize that if it weren't for Nader in 2000 we would have had President Gore instead of President Bush. | DrDirt
Banger Level: 106
Posts: 946/2743 EXP: 12422216 For next: 249768
Since: 8.10.03 From: flyover country
Since last post: 2346 days Last activity: 2247 days
| #5 Posted on 9.7.04 1242.14 Reposted on: 9.7.11 1242.24 | Originally posted by The Lurk
Originally posted by DrDirt How is this illegal. Pretty smart move if you ask me. It also shows the fear in the eyes of the Republicans.
I don't know if it shows fear, exactly. But it is a brilliant political tactic. Disengenuous? Yes. Illegal? No.
Republicans realize that if it weren't for Nader in 2000 we would have had President Gore instead of President Bush.
They realize that inspite of what they say, the country is polarized. About 40% conservative, 40% liberal and 20% undecided each cycle. If they can siphon a few points from the libs to Nader and a few points of the undecided to him, Kerry loses. They have come to the realization that although the country is united behind the troops and wants to fight the war on terror, they are wavering on their support for Bush. And economics trumps Iraq and terror.
(edited by DrDirt on 9.7.04 1243) | avonhun
Cotechino Level: 24
Posts: 36/91 EXP: 74071 For next: 4055
Since: 21.4.04
Since last post: 6741 days Last activity: 6704 days
| #6 Posted on 9.7.04 1255.03 Reposted on: 9.7.11 1257.41 | brilliant political tactic? or abuse of the system? there are a number of factors that stop nader from ever having a chance to win such as the fact that he is fighting right now just to get his name on the ballet in many states. he is not going to be allowed in any debates seeing as the debate committee is made up of only democrats and republicans. maybe this isnt illegal, but i find it so morally wrong. but hey, there are no morals in politics anymore. | Grimis
Scrapple Level: 135
Posts: 3448/4700 EXP: 28695159 For next: 639922
Since: 11.7.02 From: MD
Since last post: 4713 days Last activity: 3167 days
| #7 Posted on 9.7.04 1314.41 Reposted on: 9.7.11 1317.09 | Originally posted by avonhun he is not going to be allowed in any debates seeing as the debate committee is made up of only democrats and republicans.
OR he doesn't meet the qualifications.
Look, I think that they are too high myself, but the fact of the matter is that Nader will be lucky to be on the ballot in 15 states. There is no reason to include a guy with that little coverage. You could make a better argument for Michael Peroutka than Ralph Nader to be includedi nt he debates. | Leroy
Boudin blanc Level: 100
Posts: 375/2336 EXP: 10151822 For next: 202610
Since: 7.2.02
Since last post: 12 days Last activity: 6 days
| #8 Posted on 9.7.04 1357.47 Reposted on: 9.7.11 1357.59 | Originally posted by Grimis Look, I think that they are too high myself, but the fact of the matter is that Nader will be lucky to be on the ballot in 15 states. There is no reason to include a guy with that little coverage. You could make a better argument for Michael Peroutka than Ralph Nader to be includedi nt he debates.
Who cares how many states you are on the ballot. If these third party candidates are so inconsequential, then they should be easily handled when discussing the issues. I;m sure the Libertarian party would like to have a go, as well as the Greens.
I think Nader has a point - it has a lot to do with Perot and Ventura. The Dems/Reps not going to make those mistakes again. | SKLOKAZOID
Bierwurst Level: 90
Posts: 740/1821 EXP: 6969398 For next: 219238
Since: 20.3.02 From: California
Since last post: 1692 days Last activity: 822 days
| #9 Posted on 9.7.04 1404.03 Reposted on: 9.7.11 1405.47 | This definitely isn't a brilliant political tactic. Especially if word got out.
I would think this would hurt Nader's campaign more, if he were seen as a "puppet" candidate, placed by the Republican party. In 2000, Nader came across as more of an independent wildcard, but if things like this keep happening, it's going to seem more obvious that Nader has the backing of some in the Republican party, as well, causing less "independents" to vote for him and vote either straight for Bush, or vote for Kerry.
(edited by SKLOKAZOID on 9.7.04 1207) | The Lurk
Cotechino Level: 23
Posts: 36/83 EXP: 64313 For next: 3411
Since: 7.6.04
Since last post: 7181 days Last activity: 7181 days
| #10 Posted on 9.7.04 1425.07 Reposted on: 9.7.11 1425.20 | Originally posted by SKLOKAZOID This definitely isn't a brilliant political tactic. Especially if word got out.
I would think this would hurt Nader's campaign more, if he were seen as a "puppet" candidate, placed by the Republican party. In 2000, Nader came across as more of an independent wildcard, but if things like this keep happening, it's going to seem more obvious that Nader has the backing of some in the Republican party, as well, causing less "independents" to vote for him and vote either straight for Bush, or vote for Kerry.
(edited by SKLOKAZOID on 9.7.04 1207)
Right, I meant a brilliant political tactic by the Republicans who are behind this activity. | redsoxnation
Scrapple Level: 165
Posts: 3992/7534 EXP: 58189187 For next: 746618
Since: 24.7.02
Since last post: 3923 days Last activity: 3923 days
| #11 Posted on 9.7.04 1507.07 Reposted on: 9.7.11 1509.29 | Originally posted by SKLOKAZOID This definitely isn't a brilliant political tactic. Especially if word got out.
I would think this would hurt Nader's campaign more, if he were seen as a "puppet" candidate, placed by the Republican party. In 2000, Nader came across as more of an independent wildcard, but if things like this keep happening, it's going to seem more obvious that Nader has the backing of some in the Republican party, as well, causing less "independents" to vote for him and vote either straight for Bush, or vote for Kerry.
(edited by SKLOKAZOID on 9.7.04 1207)
Actually, it is a brilliant political tactic. All you need is Nader grabbing 3% in Michigan, and instead of Kerry grabbing the electoral votes by carrying the state 51-49, Bush gets the electoral votes carrying the state 49-48-3 (all numbers are theoretical approximations). In a 'perfect storm' Nader could actually swing an election from a narrow Kerry victory into a Bush mandate by flipping 4 or 5 states and their electoral votes. 285-254 Kerry could easily turn into 350-189 Bush just on Nader grabbing a few percent in key states. A slight tangent: Can any of the Democrats on the board provide a realistic way in which Kerry wins the White House without carrying 2 out of 3 of the Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida triumverate? A Republican can win with only 1 of those states, but I can't see anything outside of Bizarro land where a Democrat can win with only 1. | DrDirt
Banger Level: 106
Posts: 947/2743 EXP: 12422216 For next: 249768
Since: 8.10.03 From: flyover country
Since last post: 2346 days Last activity: 2247 days
| #12 Posted on 9.7.04 1540.19 Reposted on: 9.7.11 1543.34 | Originally posted by Leroy
If these third party candidates are so inconsequential, then they should be easily handled when discussing the issues.
They can't be handles easily for several reasons. They would be quite dangerous in a "debate."
1. The have nothing to lose and can say what the will.
2. They are zealots who believe in the absolute rightness of there cause.
3. They owe allegiance to a small group of eager supporters not corporations.
Should serious third party candidates be included? Yes, but how and where do you draw the line? | SKLOKAZOID
Bierwurst Level: 90
Posts: 741/1821 EXP: 6969398 For next: 219238
Since: 20.3.02 From: California
Since last post: 1692 days Last activity: 822 days
| #13 Posted on 9.7.04 1626.25 Reposted on: 9.7.11 1626.32 | Originally posted by redsoxnation Actually, it is a brilliant political tactic. All you need is Nader grabbing 3% in Michigan, and instead of Kerry grabbing the electoral votes by carrying the state 51-49, Bush gets the electoral votes carrying the state 49-48-3 (all numbers are theoretical approximations). In a 'perfect storm' Nader could actually swing an election from a narrow Kerry victory into a Bush mandate by flipping 4 or 5 states and their electoral votes. 285-254 Kerry could easily turn into 350-189 Bush just on Nader grabbing a few percent in key states.
I think you're missing my point. I fully understand how third parties can swing votes, and Nader did just that the last time he ran in 2000. But, because of that, the same tactic won't work again if Nader is supported by one of the parties.
A high-profile third party candidate is always going to take away votes from either of the two parties no matter what. But, when one of the two larger parties acts to support the third party candidate, it undermines the purpose the third party would usually serve.
If these select groups of Republicans actively pursue Ralp Nader's name listed on the ballot, then Ralph Nader becomes - for all intents and purposes - a Republican-endorsed candidate. He loses his fringe status and turns off many swing voters to his cause. Apparently, no one sees this yet.
Likewise, it would be stupid for the Democrats to fight to keep Nader off the ballot. By doing so, they build up more support for Nader to come in and gain sympathy to either swing more votes in his favor or more votes to the Republicans. They lose either way if they don't take a passive stance.
It's brilliant in theory, but conceptually flawed and lacking foresight. | Guru Zim
SQL Dejection Administrator Level: 152
Posts: 2508/6207 EXP: 44132257 For next: 169505
Since: 9.12.01 From: Bay City, OR
Since last post: 8 days Last activity: 16 hours
| ICQ: | |
| Y!: | |
|
| #14 Posted on 9.7.04 1629.44 Reposted on: 9.7.11 1630.06 | You're giving voters far too much credit.
They just need to get people who might vote for Kerry if there isn't a compelling "protest vote".
The Republicans aren't going to lose support to Nader, and the Dems probably will. I can't see how they lose, unless they stop a grassroots movement from happening by doing this.
I'm guessing that since they are involved, he wasn't going to get there on his own. | Barbwire Mike
Boudin rouge Level: 51
Posts: 347/502 EXP: 970636 For next: 43309
Since: 6.11.03 From: Dudleyville
Since last post: 6743 days Last activity: 6736 days
| #15 Posted on 9.7.04 1641.12 Reposted on: 9.7.11 1641.49 | I love the holier than thou reactions of the Democrats to this story. This is SOOO much more "sneaky" and "underhanded" than coaxing homeless people to fill out a voter registration card with beer and cigarettes. | Leroy
Boudin blanc Level: 100
Posts: 376/2336 EXP: 10151822 For next: 202610
Since: 7.2.02
Since last post: 12 days Last activity: 6 days
| #16 Posted on 9.7.04 1644.51 Reposted on: 9.7.11 1645.05 | Originally posted by DrDirt Should serious third party candidates be included? Yes, but how and where do you draw the line?
For the most part I agree - I just think it's silly to not include these candidates just based on state ballots representation.
If the primaries and caucuses can handle 7 or 8 people in a debate, then the presidential races should be able to as well. I'm not sure where you draw the line, but think pretty much everyone agrees that only having two parties - which are more or less funded by the same interests financially if not ideologically - is not the way a democratic republic should be holding it's elections.
And with all due respect Doc, I don't think all of them are zealots. Some, sure, but not all. Most third party voters have just had enough of voting for the "evil of two lessers" - however the categorize it. | DrDirt
Banger Level: 106
Posts: 950/2743 EXP: 12422216 For next: 249768
Since: 8.10.03 From: flyover country
Since last post: 2346 days Last activity: 2247 days
| #17 Posted on 9.7.04 2138.46 Reposted on: 9.7.11 2139.31 | Originally posted by Leroy
And with all due respect Doc, I don't think all of them are zealots. Some, sure, but not all. Most third party voters have just had enough of voting for the "evil of two lessers" - however the categorize it.
That isn't a criticism. They tend to be people very forceful in the convictions they hold and the candidate represents. I have voted for Jon Anderson and Ralph Nader even though I am a registered Democrat, I appreciate people who are zealous in their beliefs.
| AWArulz
Scrapple Level: 125
Posts: 787/3909 EXP: 21988623 For next: 465604
Since: 28.1.02 From: Louisville, KY
Since last post: 99 days Last activity: 99 days
| | Y!: | |
|
| #18 Posted on 9.7.04 2144.07 Reposted on: 9.7.11 2145.03 | Originally posted by Grimis You could make a better argument for Michael Peroutka than Ralph Nader to be included in the debates.
I got little tingly thingies on my arms. Don't say that name again here. He's at least as nuts as Nader. Maybe more. Wants a Theocracy, for goodness sake! | Grimis
Scrapple Level: 135
Posts: 3450/4700 EXP: 28695159 For next: 639922
Since: 11.7.02 From: MD
Since last post: 4713 days Last activity: 3167 days
| #19 Posted on 10.7.04 1456.30 Reposted on: 10.7.11 1456.31 | Originally posted by AWArulz I got little tingly thingies on my arms. Don't say that name again here. He's at least as nuts as Nader. Maybe more. Wants a Theocracy, for goodness sake!
We have a >Delegate in Maryland who is one of his acolytes...and he got elected as a Republican.
He is out to lunch in a big way...
(edited by Grimis on 10.7.04 1556) | avonhun
Cotechino Level: 24
Posts: 43/91 EXP: 74071 For next: 4055
Since: 21.4.04
Since last post: 6741 days Last activity: 6704 days
| #20 Posted on 11.7.04 1314.54 Reposted on: 11.7.11 1315.06 | The thing about letting third party candidates into the debates is that it exposes more about the policies of the republicans AND democrats. like the fact that both kerry and bush are for NAFTA which i am strongly against. it probably wont even come up in any of the debates. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |