2007-06-22 03:19:27 · 21 answers · asked by Page 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He handed the election to George W. in 2000. Nader received 2 +million votes, had he not run, Gore would have won the election.
2007-06-22 03:23:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes the idea of Ralph Nader running for presidency again bothers me. First of all Nader is too old to be president in my opinion because you never know how healthy a 73 year old is and how much longer he has to live. Also I think that he couldn't be considered a real option and he just took votes from other candidates such as Al Gore. I would be very disappointed if he ran again.
2007-06-22 03:25:53 · answer #2 · answered by Courtney 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Plain and simple, the man's an egomaniac who cost Al Gore the election. Without Nader, Gore would have won Florida and New Hampshire and the 2000 election Florida recount would have never happened. Nader's rants against corporations and big business are as nutty as Pat Buchanan's rants against liberals and immigrants. In a way, they're two sides of the same coin -- distrust government and vote for me.
2007-06-22 03:25:03 · answer #3 · answered by Stephen L 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It bothers Democratic candidates from whom Ralph Nader will take support.
2007-06-22 03:23:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I loved VinceFoster's answer and he's absolutely right. Those of us who have been around for a few decades and have a few presidential elections under our belt are used to Nader running. In the words of South Park: "Nothing to see here people. Move along."
2007-06-22 03:27:17 · answer #5 · answered by David M 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
it is not his magnificent to run if his objective is to bust the equipment whether it has a solid unintentional result. Oh he could have a criminal magnificent, yet no longer a ethical one. it is why we've primaries and attempt to narrow the sector to 2 applicants basically. we want a democratic result wherein one in all them gets a great form of the vote. we can not try this with greater effective than 2 applicants--our equipment grew to become into no longer designed for it. you may could desire to have a runoff vote, and we don't try this. cut up as we are, with 3 applicants or greater you're very pretty much absolute to have a president that maximum folk did no longer want.
2016-11-07 05:06:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it has bothered people every 4 years for the past 30 years or so.
It's not like there's even a remote chance of him winning, the office of president is guarded by the two parties. But Democrats have always fretted that he may chisel away enough of the Democrat vote to allow for a Republican victory.
2007-06-22 03:26:05 · answer #7 · answered by Diminati 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nope, he's History. Hillary will raise the $500 million needed to win. Obama and Edwards will not. Nader has refused to use any of his own money, he's a multi-million air.
2007-06-22 03:23:54 · answer #8 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No anyone can run for office so he can do what he wants. I just think it is so funny that he feels he is the moral judge and jury on the candidates and makes his decision on how to run because of that. Now he thinks Hillary is a sham so he is going to run and right now there is no guarantee she wins the nomination. The great thing for Republicans is that he views himself as liberal so when he does run he really pulls no votes away from the Republican candidate just the Democrat.
2007-06-22 03:28:46 · answer #9 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, it does not bother me at all.
Anything to shake up the current two party system is a plus, even if he only gets less than one percent of votes.
I think it would bother me more if he won;)
2007-06-22 03:29:06 · answer #10 · answered by davethenayber 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋