Will Ralph "the spoiler" Nader ruin, I mean run for president in 08?

Answer 1

Dude, get over it. He's not a spoiler. You're sounding like a whiney repuke neo-con. He didn't cause anyone to lose. We do live in a democracy you know. We should have more voices on the election cirquit not less. If Gore picked a different V.P and ran a better campaign, he would have won the electoral vote. You guys need to face this fact and get over it.
BTW, you don't hear from him much because the corporate media doesn't want you to hear from him. I've heard him several times on NPR and Pacifica radio. He's considering a run if Hillary is selected as the Democratic candidate. GOOOOO RALPH.

Answer 2

Yikes! NO. i'm no longer saying i'm against a third social gathering, through fact I did vote for Ross Perot. Ralph Nader is a nut. i do unlike him. He ran as tho he replaced into extra on the liberal section yet took funds and help from the neocons. he's yet another Joe Lieberman.

Answer 3

No, he's moved on.

However, he/they don't run believing they will win. They run to get a certain percentage of the votes. As long as they run and get enough votes, the Green Party stays a legal and viable political party. They do that so some day other voices will be heard and not just the right and left wings of the same vulture.

Answer 4

Possibly, and maybe he'll swing the vote agauin. Alternately, you guys could get a genuinely democratic electoral system that would actually reflect the will of the people.

Answer 5

He's said he'll run if Hillary is the nominee.


and I'll vote for him if Hillary is the nominee.

Answer 6

The potheads in Humboldt County adopted him after the last election. He won there.

Notice how we haven't seen much of him since?

Answer 7

No, he doesn't admit it but he still devastated by having caused Bush to win the '08 election

Answer 8

He'll run and he'll get even fewer votes than last time.

Answer 9

I’m sorry to see that you 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 the nonsense cited in this question. 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.

And I’m sure you’ve also heard the stuff about Nader having been receiving financial help from the GOP--that's not true (unless you count individual registered Republicans who supported him because they like him, some of his positions, and his integrity--I've met some). (Here is where you can read Nader's letter to Kerry/Edwards regarding these allegations: http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=142 . And check this article out for some of the facts: http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=267

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 lies like the ones in this question.

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 10

It doesn't matter whether he does or not. He's never won, he's never even come close, and he won't ever win.