February 22, 2004
Nader Admits More Gore Supporters Voted For Him
Nader for President - www.voteNader.org -
In 2000, exit polling showed that 21% or 25% of my vote would have gone to Bush, 38% or 41% to Gore, and the rest would not have voted.
Fair enough. Nader admitting it is enough for me to declare it undisputed that more Nader voters preferred Gore to Bush than the other way around.
Now we just have to catch Nader admitting that he doesn't think he can win, but that that's not the point. He said that regularly in 2000.
Those two put together would prove that Nader knows he's damaging democracy and doesn't care. In other words, he thinks that increasing the chances of Bush's re-election is a fair price to pay for him marketing his message by running for a presidency he knows he can't win.
That's really want I want to reduce it down to - the argument that sometimes you have to destroy something to eventually heal it. I think that would be an interesting debate to have. I'd sure like to hear Nader's plan to eventually heal the interim damage done to the Supreme Court.
I don't think he is damaging democracy. He is hurting The Democrats. If anything I would say he is increasing democracy by providing another choice.
What would the country be like if there were three major parties instead of two? Would it errod politics altogether? Look at Italy. There must be a dozen or so parties.
Are Americans only able to think either / or?
While Nader may not be a good choice for president, I like the idea of voting for a person instead of a party.
Posted by: DC Barns at February 23, 2004 02:24 PMI had a long essay "proving" that third parties are, in effect, bad for democracy with the way our democracy is currently set up. I just realized that I never actually put it on this weblog. I'll post it soon.
I agree with you abstractly DC, but in our American reality, I've personally come to the conclusion that it doesn't work that way.
you also need to get timely message out about nader before it is too late. nader has no electoral votes, never had em never will, why do people think he could ever win without electoral votes,NO ONE EVER BRINGS THIS UP ABOUT OR TO NADER, THEY REALLY BELIEVE HE COULD WIN, HOW STUPID, NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER WON WITHOUT THE ELECTORAL VOTES, GET THIS MESSAGE OUT NOW
Posted by: mark patterson at April 19, 2004 08:13 PM