Will Ralph Nader play spoiler for the Democrats in 2008?

Question

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/4312689/

Answer 1

The Democrats name called him all they wanted just because he ran for President and became part of the process. But no, Nader won't run in 2008. However, you must be naive in thinking that we'll see the typical boring duopoly Presidential election. Wrong! Americans are really fed up, we're sick of tired with picking black or white all the time, how about red, green, yellow, blue? I see Tancredo and Paul running a third party ticket representing the Constitution and Libertarian parties and it would be the first time 2 third parties would run a joint ticket (I'd also add that if the run a unity ticket, they should be able to do the same with Congressional elections by having a Libertarian or Constitutionalist in many districts and this might work for them). Spoiler is just a put down to those who want their ideas to be heard and become part of the democratic process.

Answer 2

Ralph Nader will by no ability win. there is not any longer sufficient human beings in this u . s . a . to vote him in and alot of his perspectives are very radical. i'm very liberal yet i've got self assurance that the sole place Ralph Nader performs is taken under consideration one of taking votes from the democratic candidate. it relatively is a shame that he has to try this. i've got self assurance like he's an incredibly clever and gifted guy yet he nevertheless chooses to run for president, dropping a hundred's of hundreds of greenbacks he would desire to in basic terms as actually donate to his renowned charity. He ought to get in the back of something human beings on the polls and vote for B.O. What makes you think that Nader is ethical and non-racist?

Answer 3

Ralph Nader couldn't spoil a birthday party.

Answer 4

When a third candidate can spoil an election, this should be a major indicator that something is wrong with our democracy.

When a democracy only allows one more de facto political party than a communist state, we need to seriously examine how democratic that nation really is.

Instead of blaming third party candidates for trying to bring more democracy to the United States, why don't we change our election system so that it actually makes our elections more democratic?

Answer 5

He says he's going to throw in if Hillary's the nominee. Let him, he's old news. A great deal of the voting public is too young to even remember his hey day, and that's long over. I've always felt that Nader was nothing but a self-righteous pain the butt that really just enjoys putting a fly in the ointment. That sort of self-serving stupidity just makes me angry. I'm just glad he can't really be of much consequence anymore. He has finally exceeded his own expiration date.

Answer 6

Although Nader has had some very good ideas in the past, that's where he now belongs .. in the past. No, he's no threat to the Dem's.

Answer 7

It's scary how many people have bought into this propaganda intended as a silencing mechanism. I think Ralph Nader’s decades of work and care for Americans (see sources) warrants at least considering that his candidacy was intended to push issues and educate rather than because of this "spoiler" nonsense. Nader knows what most people ignore which is that even if he can't win, his running can help push issues & solutions and encourage people to think and bring pressure on other candidates to address certain issues. The further right the Democratic candidate (and by "right" I mean towards the big gov't neocons), the more important it is for Nader to run in order to try to bring public attention to issues and to candidates’ records, and at least try to pull the Democratic party back into standing for American people's interests (there are certainly plenty of special interests pulling them further in the other direction every four years).

If you actually believe that the Democrats are really concerned about Nader “taking away votes” from them, explain to me why in 2004 in Illinois, the Democratic legislature had to pass a law to allow Bush on the ballot but the same state's dems were working hard to keep Nader off the ballot--or explain why they don't even try to spread the word about instant run-off voting now that they have some power.

The truth is, Ralph Nader ran not because his goal in life is to be president and to have power, there is really no evidence to that effect, rather he ran to educate people and to push issues (and so, to help ordinary Americans), because his running in itself did make many Americans think about the real situation of the country, our real interests and real solutions and also to try to get other candidates to adopt some of his positions on issues like health care, a living wage, the war, education, the list goes on and on (if you're not already familiar with it there's plenty of information about his positions on votenader.org in addition to nader.org). And there are loads of evidence that suggest that he cares passionately about the welfare of the American people (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, seatbelts, Freedom of Information Act, and tons of citizen groups are just a few for starters). If there aren’t other candidates out there caring about and presenting real solutions to (not just paying lip service to) issues as important as these, then it becomes increasingly important for Nader (or someone like him) to run and bring attention to the plight of the American people and what can be done about it now.

No, They mock Nader not just because they don't want people to know the truth but because they don't want people to take the truth seriously. For example, it is not in the interests of corporations who donate huge sums of money to politicians' (of both parties) election campaigns to have more fair elections which might result in the election of candidates who are not beholden to their (corporate) interests. They can't attack his positions about fair elections because his positions are easy to defend and everyone supports democracy (plus this could encourage people to think about issues). They can't really attack his character because he has good character (particularly in comparison to the other candidates) and this is well known, though there have been attempts to spread lies about his character (starting with GM back in the 60s). So when they can't keep him out of the news, they mock him, they try to make him out to be an eccentric old man with illusions of grandeur, a well-intentioned egomaniac, a big joke--it's the best way left to get people to ignore what he's saying and doing. Unfortunately, people buy into this and go around spreading these lies.

But really, people have a right to run or vote for whoever they want to vote for, and a lot of people want to vote for someone they believe still represents their interests and who refuse to be broken into voting out of fear and for a two-party duopoly that gets worse every four years. You can’t steal votes, votes need to be earned—and despite the fact that there is plenty of evidence that Gore actually won, if he had been a good enough candidate to keep members of his own party from voting for Bush in Florida, he wouldn’t have “spoiled” the 2000 election for himself.

Answer 8

If the RNC will meet his price.

Answer 9

Please dear God, let this happen.... PLEASE?!?!?!?!?!