A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
March 31, 2004NADER'S MOTIVATIONIn the New York Times today is a story about Ralph Nader's reasons for running. "No, he says, he is neither a nut nor a narcissist. Yes, he agrees with his sharpest Democratic critics that defeating President Bush is essential. In the end, he believes, out-of-power Democrats will rally around John Kerry, and Mr. Nader will take votes from disaffected Republicans and independents." Can Nader possibly believe that, particularly in light of the polling data? "And Mr. Nader's argument that he can draw more support from Mr. Bush than from Mr. Kerry has yet to be proved. A New York Times/CBS News poll earlier this month found that when voters were asked to choose between Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, 46 percent chose the president and 43 percent Mr. Kerry. When Mr. Nader was added to the mix, Mr. Bush's support stayed at 46 percent, Mr. Kerry's dropped to 38 percent and Mr. Nader drew 7 percent. More than half of Nader supporters preferred Mr. Kerry in a two-way race." Nader cannot really believe that disaffected Republicans are going to vote for him. Comic Jon Stewart sums it up: "Conservatives for Nader. . . Not a large group. About the same size as 'Retarded Death Row Texans for Bush.'" So that leaves me with two questions: 1. Are there moderate independents who will vote Nader? I seriously doubt that there are more than a few. 2. Is there a possibility that Nader actually helps Kerry by opening a "second front" against Bush? I doubt that too. In the end, I think that Nader's decision to run was based on a calculated judgment that his candidacy would limit Kerry's ability to move to the middle. On the other hand, Nader may simply be an egomaniac, as many suggest. After all, he compares himself to an "abolitionist in North or South Carolina in the 1830's." Posted by Todd Pearson at March 31, 2004 01:32 PMComments
I vote for egomaniac. Plainly, he thinks he's smarter than the rest of us, and continues to fashion himself as a leader even though he garners so few followers. If his candidacy keeps Kerry from sailing towards the center, it simply further ensures Kerry's defeat. Posted by: bk at March 31, 2004 01:51 PMI've never voted for a major party candidate for president, and in 2000 I registered my protest vote with Nader. I don't agree with hardly anything he says, but I thought it would be good to help the Green Party reach 5 percent of the vote to help bring more parties into the mix. If Nader didn't run, I would have voted for Brown, the Libertarian. If I had to have chosen between the Republicans and Democrats in 2000, I probably would have chosen Bush, just because I had trouble trusting Gore. It's tough to see through early polls how a Nader candidacy will affect the election. I'm willing to bet that most lefties won't risk another four years of Bush by voting for Nader. They may be saying they support Nader now in an attempt to get Kerry to pay attention to their issues. But with the general consensus being that Nader cost Gore the election, I think most Democrats won't want to make that mistake again. Posted by: Staunch Moderate at March 31, 2004 02:25 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
