response 24 of 175:

Oct 27 16:39 UTC 2000

Answer to #22, and I believe I speak for the vast majority of Nader 
supporters: 

Beats me.  I'm voting for Nader, and don't give a rat's ass whether 
Ross Perot had any effect on Republican policies

response 26 of 175:

Oct 27 17:25 UTC 2000

So, voters for Nader have decided to wear blinders - lock-step solidarity -
like lemmings over the cliff. Real heroes. Sound the trumpets.

response 28 of 175:

Oct 27 18:48 UTC 2000

Its being reported that the Republican party is today buying heavy
ad time in michigan, and the ads feature someone attacking Gore.  No
surprise there.  But its not Bush, the ads show *Nader* attacking Gore!
Yes, the Bush people are running pro-Nader ads.  Why? because they
recognize the better Nader does, the better they do.

Gore is NOT a conservative.  He's pro choice.  pro affirmative action.
pro gay rights.  a rabidly strong enivronmentalist.  Gore has drafted
legislation to protect the redwoods in Oregon, sponsored it in congress--
a lot more than Nader has done.  Gore is a populist who says over and
over that he wants to fight for the working class man who gets
screwed by the establishment.  This makes him conservative?! 

Ralph Nader is not qualified to be president.  The Sierra club isnt
backing him.  Greenpeace isnt backing him.  PETA isnt backing him.  The
World Wildlife Fund isnt backing him.  They've endorsed Gore-- Gore is an
established environmentalist with a voting record to back it up.  He
doesnt just *say* he is like Nader.  

to do any good, a president has to get elected.  And to get elected, you
have to appeal to the center, not the left or the right.  Thats just the
way it is.  I think if those who are voting for Nader are doing so because
they dont want to be taken for granted are taking a selfish attitude.  Its
"dont pander to anyone else, pander to me"  "buy my vote"  What is the use
of nominating a candidate who is so far extreme, one way or another, that
he cant get elected.  

response 30 of 175:

Oct 27 19:26 UTC 2000

Now, Gore can point out what Bush's party is supporting! Nader! Gore is
a safe haven by contrast.

response 32 of 175:

Oct 27 20:21 UTC 2000

The answer to the question in resp:22 ::

> Question: What impacts did Perot's candidacy have on American politics?
 
Perot's 1992 candidacy put the issue of the federal deficit on the 
front burner.  The Clinton budget a year or two later -- the last 
one passed while the Democrats controlled Congress, the one passed by 
one vote, the GOP chanting "Bye bye Margie!" at the Pennsylvania 
rep who cast the deciding vote; the budget which the GOP swore would
wreck the economy -- took the steps needed to start bringing the 
deficit down, and created tremendous confidence in the financial 
markets which helped push the 90's economic boom.  

(What was that Clinton quote?  Supposedly something along the lines of, 
"You mean the success of my presidency depends on a bunch of fucking 
bond traders?")

Anyway, the large Perot vote led to deficit reduction being taken
seriously in Washington, so all the benefits that flow from that, 
you have to give at least a share of the credit to the 1992 Perot
voters.

response 34 of 175:

Oct 27 21:01 UTC 2000

No. A vote for Nader is slightly more relevant than not voting at all. The
assumption of #33 is that individuals who will vote for Nader would have voted
for Gore instead. We cannot predict that any more than we can predict the
votes of people who don't bother to vote.

#32> Fair enough answer. Did Perot's candidacy affect how the two main parties
respond to constituent opinions, though, or did it only reprioritize issues?
Nader's not running on a clear platform (yeah, environmentalism, whatever...
Gore's as strong there as Nader, at least as far as talking about it, and the
polls reflect that people really don't care as much about that as other issues
anyway), he's running on a "we're mad at the status quo" campaign.

(Granted, Perot's campaign DIDN'T focus nearly so much on "we're mad at the
status quo" as it did on Ken's issues, so from that regard, it WAS moderately
successful.)

response 36 of 175:

Oct 27 21:39 UTC 2000

The safest bet, were one to be placed, would be that about half of them would
vote for Gore, the other half wouldn't vote at all (and of course some small
fraction of them would vote for W). All the same, a vote for Bush is a vote
for Bush, a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. Even metaphorically, a vote
for Nader is only one-fourth a vote for Bush (if 1,000 people vote, 400 vote
for Gore, 400 for Bush, and 200 for Nader, then -- by my estimates -- if Nader
hadn't run, Gore'd've gotten 500 votes, Bush 400, and 100 wouldn't've voted...
Gore gets 50 more votes than "tied", instead of tying, so Nader's 200 votes
turned into 50 "votes" for Gore...) (or something like that).

response 38 of 175:

Oct 27 22:08 UTC 2000

I like Nader mostly because I believe the two major party candidates are
totally owned by major corporations, and will run the government
accordingly.

Re #33: Actually, it depends on what state you live in.  For example, if you
live in Georgia, which consistantly goes Republican, the electoral college
system ensures that a vote for anyone except Bush is effectively
meaningless.  Voting for Nader there to send a message won't hurt Gore at
all, or help Bush.

response 40 of 175:

Oct 27 22:24 UTC 2000

#37 smacks of "COMMIE GO HOME"...
(and I *have* been in a third world country, and yes, they're screwed up)
(which is why I'm moving to Canada when Bush gets elected ;} )

(joke, for thehumor-impaired)

response 42 of 175:

Oct 27 23:27 UTC 2000

"All Hail President Kang!"

I think Nader's running on an ego trip - "My name can get the Green Party
5% of the popular vote, even though I don't have a coherent platform, and
am pandering to at least as significant a degree as Bush or Gore."

response 44 of 175:

Oct 28 00:45 UTC 2000

A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader, not Bush.  That's why it says "NADER"
next to the little checkbox.  Duh.

response 46 of 175:

Oct 28 01:28 UTC 2000

  As much as I despise the "you have to vote for one of us or your vote
  is wasted" line of reasoning, I think there is, at least this much to
  be said against voting third-party:  I believe many of those who plan
  to vote for Nader, especially those who would personally be aghast if
  he actually managed to implement most of his policies, are motivated,
  either partly or wholly, by an impulse to avoid responsibility.
  For those people, the worst thing that could happen would be for them
  to cast their vote for the candidate who got elected, because then
  they'd have to face four years of not being able to say "I told you so."

  Any realistic voter realizes that whomever we choose to elect in
  the next few weeks, America's problems aren't going to magically go
  away and there will be things in the next presidency which go wrong,
  inevitably.  I think a substantial portion of Nader's appeal, perhaps
  on a partly conscious level, is that Nader voters realize that
  whichever major-party candidate gets elected they'll be able to sit
  back and say "I told you so," or at least "Don't blame me."  If your
  basic reason for voting Nader is that you can't stomach either of the
  major party candidates elected then get over it.  One of them's *going*
  to get elected.  Opting to vote for a third party candidate because you
  don't want to have endorsed a flawed major party candidate is not a
  vote cast to improve our country, it's a vote cast to preserve your
  own feeling of moral superiority.

  As far as I'm concerned, the only respectable reason to vote for Nader
  is if you can honestly say that you would prefer our country with Nader
  in the highest executive office in the land.  Before you can plausibly
  claim that, you need to think about what that would actually mean.
  Most of the Nader voters fully expect him to lose and consequently
  have never realistically questioned what a Nader presidency would mean.
  For those of you Nader supporters who haven't yet admitted to yourselves
  that a Nader vote is a cop-out -- a safe way for you to feel good
  about voting but not have feel bad about what your candidate does in
  office -- try to name five important things that Nader would actually
  accomplish if elected that you think would be good for the country.
  If you can't do that then you're not really voting for Nader, are you?

  Finally, for those of you who plan to vote for Nader as a "protest
  vote" or to "send a message" -- despite its flaws, you're nevertheless
  living in a country run according to one of the soundest democratic
  systems in the world.  What have you done since the last election to
  "send a message"?  It may not be as strong as you'd like, but you
  have a voice that you can use to send a message any day of any year,
  not just on a single Tuesday once every four years.  If you were really
  interested in "sending a message" then why wait until now?  I can assure
  you that the "corporate interests" that Nader supporters claim to abhor
  aren't limiting themselves to cryptic quadrennial quixotic gestures.
  For those of you who have a message to send, let me know and I'll send
  you a stamp.  In the time it takes to stand in line at the polling place
  and cast your vote for Nader you could write a letter to either party or
  to your elected legislators which will have a hundred times the effect
  of your protest vote.  If what you have to say is so important to you,
  speak up, don't cop out.  And if you're not willing to that, then the
  rest of us don't want to hear your gripes.  "Don't blame me, I voted for
  Nader," isn't going to cut it..