The W
Views: 178995888
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.3.17 0652
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - MI GOP Collecting Sigs for Nader Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1308 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (21 total)
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.
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Repeal The XVII Amendment
Next thread: Security Ramp up as elections near
Previous thread: Why France, China oppose intervention in Sudan...
(1308 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - MI GOP Collecting Sigs for NaderRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2024 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.198 seconds.