quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Well...did Nader cost Kerry any states?

he may havecost kerry iowa but its still not clear because they stopped counting the voted because of some faulty machines.

at last count with 97% of the precincts voting:

Bush 727,439 50%
Kerry 715,876 49%
Nader 5,628 1%

The margin between Bush and Kerry is 11,564.

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

I must add the Nader is a f'n shit. He may have not taken enough votes away from Kerry to make a difference but he should be faulted for taking away time, energy, and money from dems that they could have dedicated to Bush. That may not be reflected in the vote results but i'm sure it did not help the democrat's efforts.


I want to further add, that the dems should have fronted a conservative evangelical to do the same on the repub side. Maybe they'll do that next election.

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

Last edited by Spacey Orange on Nov-03-2004 at 08:03

Trancaholic,

Nader and the other independant certainly have effected particularly Wisconsin and Iowa. Impossible to say who this has hurt more since it's so close right now. Either way Nader's role, it can be seen now, has indeed had a significant effect on the election because it's comming down to critical votes that both Bush and Kerry need.

I doubt it. The type of people who are going to vote for Nader are the type of people who refuse to choose between the lesser of two evils. No one is thinking "well I really want Kerry to beat Bush, but I'm going to vote Nader." Those votes would have gone to another independent, such as Cobb, or to no one at all if Nader hadn't run.

I cant beleive how stupid southern americans are.


Look at the map of the red states.



Welcome 4 more years of war,shit economic policy, and more divison in america.

___________________
http://www.musicv2.com/artist/davepiazza

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I doubt it. The type of people who are going to vote for Nader are the type of people who refuse to choose between the lesser of two evils. No one is thinking "well I really want Kerry to beat Bush, but I'm going to vote Nader." Those votes would have gone to another independent, such as Cobb, or to no one at all if Nader hadn't run.

That is certainly possible. I don't know the psychology of those Nader/independ party voters. Perhaps you are right and they would have chose to just not vote for anyone if there were only Bush/Kerry. Hard to know. One thing is for sure, as close as it is right now in Wisconsin/Iowa this may certainly be a topic of discussion in Kerry circles since he is slightly trailing in both right now.

Oops, update.
Kerry now leading in Wisconsin.
John F. Kerry Democrat 1,460,894 (50%) 0
George W. Bush (i) Republican 1,449,499 (49%)

Nevada, Iowa, New Mexico to Bush.

Unless Ohio has at least 145,000 provisional and absentee ballots outstanding that would go to Kerry, Bush takes the electoral votes and wins the presidency.

100% precincts reporting
George W. Bush (i) Republican 2,777,645 (51%) 20
John F. Kerry Democrat 2,632,547 (48%) 0

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Well...did Nader cost Kerry any states?

no...stop reaching...deal.

Nader was PISSED when he gave his speech!

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange I must add the Nader is a f'n shit. He may have not taken enough votes away from Kerry to make a difference but he should be faulted for taking away time, energy, and money from dems that they could have dedicated to Bush. That may not be reflected in the vote results but i'm sure it did not help the democrat's efforts. I want to further add, that the dems should have fronted a conservative evangelical to do the same on the repub side. Maybe they'll do that next election.

First of all, Ralph Nader has as much right to run in a Presidential election as anyone else. Secondly, no one made the Democrats Disenfranchise Nader's supporters by making such strong efforts to have him removed in other states. Living in Ohio, I collected signatures for Ralph's campaign, and talking to his supporters, they voiced their likeliness to do one of two things (upon Nader's imminent removal):
a.) write Nader in
b.) Vote for another third party candidate.

The people of America are more or less crying for a candidate who can fairly and honestly represent them and their views. This was not offered in this election. We got a politician from Texas who allows his religious views to alter his secular life, and one from Massachusets whose main political platform was, "Im not the incumbent!" While both of the major candidates had several good points, it is no secret that these people win because of the large sums of money they can spend. These funds which are putting a stranglehold on American politics are largely donated by corporations and their owners. Corporations do not represent the good of the American people. Additionally, both of the major candidates have too narrow of a view of the world. A perfect example of this was shown during the third debate when the moderator asked about the AIDS problem. The answer for both candidates, after stumbling over the idea in their minds, was simply more funding. While this certainly helps, it is not a solution. It also shows how little these gentlemen saw of the world beyond the following issues: Terrorism, Iraq war, Dropping economy, Large-scale job loss. A few other topics were gently breached, but usually as a reference point for one of the above. There were alot more issues in this election but due to (I think) the simplicity of the common American mind, the candidates were afraid of overloading their minds with information.

I (generally) like the American Electoral process, but the American public is ridiculous. They vote a straight party ticket, regardless of their candidate (this explains how a local judge who participated in a financial scam, to avoid paying nearly 200,000 dollars worth of taxes can get 48% of the vote), they vote like their spouses (I saw 7 different husbands enter the voting booth while their wives were in there yesterday. This is, I believe, illegal), they vote on issues and candidates they dont know anything about, they vote based on how many times theyve heard the name on tv and radio.....It is disgusting. Until the American public starts to educate itself on things, our elections will always be a mish-mash of those who understand who stands for what and those who vote for vapid reasons like party lines and tv slogans (Ya just lift up the hood and fix it!"....anyone remember that one?). The lesser of two evils did not win this election, no matter who ends up winning. But then again, voting lets the public choose who they want, and maybe in the end, theyll get what they deserve. Ill just detachedly observe it all...

Last edited by on Nov-03-2004 at 14:47

Good post Tribu. To the Democratic voters who complain about Nader's candidacy, keep in mind that you live in a democracy and - as such - it should be the right of any citizen to run for office. If the Democrats had wanted Nader supporters to vote for Kerry, then they should have instituted policies that appealed to them. You can't run a centre-right agenda, treading carefully on every issue for fear of alienating the moderate conservatives and then just expect to be entitled to the leftist / liberal vote automatically. If the Democrats wanted Nader's votes, they should have done so by appealling to his base, not by trying to force him off ballots.

Besides, I think it's fallicious to assume that Nader voters would have automatically voted for Kerry had Nader not run. I think it's far more likely that they'd either have stayed home or voted for the Greens. In any case, the amount of votes that could have been won from forcing Nader not to run would have been too small to have made any difference in this election.

quote:

I want to further add, that the dems should have fronted a conservative evangelical to do the same on the repub side. Maybe they'll do that next election.

What I want to know is why Badnarik isn't stealing more votes from Bush on the neoliberally alligned right. These people are always whingeing about big-government but then proceed to vote for a party the has infringed on civil liberties from the beginning, destroyed right-to-privacy laws, believes it has the right to arrest and incarcerate people without trial, tell people what they can and cannot do in their bedrooms and tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. The Republicans are inherently (on a social basis at least) keen on big-government - why the fuck aren't more people waking up and voting Libertarian? Why couldn't Badnarik have polled 2% in Ohio? Why is the left so fractured and the right so blindly unified behind a party that probably doesn't represent it as well as most of it's misinformed members probably believe?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/