http://bp2.blogger.com/_sgDXxnsAt8A/R8IT3zkrGJI...

I voted Nader 3x in a row, but Obama or Edwards were satisfactory to me. What about Obama is unsatisfactory? I'll assume Hillary because she's, well Hillary (choose your poison) and McCain because he's psychotic re: the war.

Well, to be consistent you must be tired of the current system as well, which is set up as a two-party plurality system and establishes the facts that people speak.

Not that you're that way but far lefties (which include Nader fans) have no chance being on the fringe in such a system, and the rest of us are shortchanged as well. (Even if you view issues as up-down, yes-no, with five such issues there are 32 different combinations and 32 places that separate political parties can occupy in an election based only on these issues.) The only realistic hope for the far lefties is proportional representation (which with coalitions would be a good, not a bad, thing, despite US establishment opposition to it) and the rest of us would benefit from this as well if the two major parties could be fractured into separate parties who were truly independent of each other (forming coalitions for practicality and expediency only).

Given the growth of Washington over several decades and continued progression of dependence and demand by the middle class on entitlements, even traditional small-government libertarian Americans are shoved aside and marginalized, and proportional representation would benefit us as well. (GOP is dominated by big business and is happy to have Washington engineer advantages to it, not limited to unrestricted immigration to depress labor costs.)

Ignore Nader (as I suspect most will do) — what if among the three real candidates you had to vote for two? (Approval vote, maximal strategy)

Holly, the result would truly address (and possibly refute) your claim.

…at the latest Nader candidacy.

he has ceased to provide any evidence that his candidacy is still relevant in today's political environment.

What does that mean? The problems he calls attention to have not been solved. Hell, most of them aren't even talked about by the major parties.

I, like many here, admired the man in my youth and was thrilled when he spoke at my college 30 years ago. But, he has ceased to provide any evidence that his candidacy is still relevant in today's political environment.

“Where do the Democrats stand on foreign policy, fiscal policy, and social policy? It's unclear because Democratic politicians are more content with being the “we oppose the Republicans” party than with being a party of consistent principles.”

I can't argue with you there… I've said before that if Hillary hijacks the superdelegates (when there is a clear preference for Obama) that I will not vote for her. She (and the Dem leaders, including Obama) expect Dems to line up and support her so they can beat the Republicans. To me the Dems have made a lot of noise about Bush and the Reps. the last couple of years, yet they've given Bush almost everything he's asked for. So if the Dems are no different than the Republicans, why should I vote for Hillary just to keep the Reps. out? I will vote for someone else (if Hillary hijacks the superdelegates). If the Dems lose and ask why, I'll ask right back- I'll ask them where they were on all the important legislation and differences they had with Reps. All that legislation that they ended up siding with Bush on, despite all their noise.

I do think the Dems have different policies than the Republicans, but no one would know if you look at their records..

Thinking ahead to the next presidential election, if the 2008 general
election were held today for whom would you vote if the candidates were…?

McCain – 43
Obama – 47

That's three polls within the last 45 days showing that Obama polls better against McCain than Clinton.

If Holly (or anyone else) can find a SINGLE poll in which Clinton polls better against McCain than Obama does, I'd sure like to see it.

If Obama is the Democratic nominee, McCain will be the next President.

Actually, polls indicate EXACTLY the opposite. Polls consistently show that Obama would are better against McCain than Clinton would. The reason? Obama polls better among independent voters than Clinton does:

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll (2/19/08-2/20/08):
link: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022108_rele...

Thinking ahead to the next presidential election, if the 2008 general
election were held today for whom would you vote if the candidates were…?

McCain – 47%
Clinton – 44%

Thinking ahead to the next presidential election, if the 2008 general
election were held today for whom would you vote if the candidates were…?

McCain – 47
Obama – 43

Diageo/Hotline Poll (2/14/08 – 2/17/08)
link: http://www.diageohotlinepoll.com/08_Feb_Data.pdf

Now, suppose the general election for president in 2008 were being held today
between (ROTATE) Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, for whom would you vote? (IF UNDECIDED/REFUSED, ASK:) Which way would you lean as of today?

McCain 36%
Lean McCain 4%
Obama 45%
Lean Obama 3%
Undecided 9%
Refused to answer 3%

Now, suppose the general election for president in 2008 were being held today
between (ROTATE) Republican John McCain and Democrat Hillary Clinton, for whom would you vote? (IF UNDECIDED/REFUSED, ASK:) Which way would you lean as of today?

McCain 44%
Lean McCain 4%
Clinton 39%
Lean Clinton 1%
Undecided 9%
Refused to answer 3%

Diageo/Hotline Poll (1/10/08 – 1/12/08)
link: http://www.diageohotlinepoll.com/08_Jan_Data.pdf

Now, suppose the general election for president in 2008 were being held today
between (ROTATE) Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, for whom would you vote? (IF UNDECIDED/REFUSED, ASK:) Which way would you lean as of today?

McCain 39%
Lean McCain 3%
Obama 41%
Lean Obama 2%
Undecided 11%
Refused to answer 3%

Now, suppose the general election for president in 2008 were being held today
between (ROTATE) Republican John McCain and Democrat Hillary Clinton, for whom would you vote? (IF UNDECIDED/REFUSED, ASK:) Which way would you lean as of today?

McCain 47%
Lean McCain 1%
Clinton 43%
Lean Clinton 2%
Undecided 7%
Refused to answer 1%

When things go wrong for the Democrat's, it's ALWAYS someone else's fault but their own:

For Democrats, Al Gore didn't lose the 2000 election; it was “stolen” from him with the help of Nader.

For Democrat's, Nader's outpouring of support from progressive voters in 2000 couldn't have been because Gore failed to appeal to them; it must of been because Nader “stole” Gore voters.

For Democrats, Nader's decision to run in 2004 couldn't have been because the Democratic Nominee was an uncharismatic, lackluster candidate with a habit of flip-flopping; it must have been because he's trying to sabotage the Democratic Party

And for Democrats today, Nader's decision to run in 2008 can't be because he sees no hope in either of the major two parties; it must be because he's a “pathetic egomaniac.”

The Democratic Party establishment is suffering from entitlement syndrome in which it feels that it is entitled to any left-of-center voter, regardless of how horrible their candidates might be. God forbid that someone outside the Democrat-Republican duopoly dares to run an independent campaign.

There is much with which I disagree with Mr. Nader, and I too think Nader's campaign is a futile endeavor. But at least Nader is candid and frank about what he believes.

He's been consistent on the Iraq War. He opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2002, when half the Democrats in congress voted for it. He continued to oppose the invasion of Iraq when the first bombs fell on Baghdad. He opposed the continuation of the war when things were going relatively well in Iraq during the first few weeks of the war, and he opposed the war when things began unraveling in Iraq to the point of civil war. And he opposed the surge in Iraq last spring back when the Democratic leadership was inserting pork-barrel spending into the war appropriations bill rather than doing the job that their constituents elected them to office for: ENDING THE WAR.

He's also spoken out on issues that the Democratic Party doesn't want to touch. He opposes the War on Drugs–an issue which few Democrats (other than Kucinich) are willing to even address. He's spoken out against the military industrial complex–another issue which few Democrats are willing to even address (and how could they, giving that so many of them receive thousands of dollars from lobbyists in the defense industry?).

This is what happens when a party fails to stand for anything. Where do the Democrats stand on foreign policy, fiscal policy, and social policy? It's unclear because Democratic politicians are more content with being the “we oppose the Republicans” party than with being a party of consistent principles.

Just look at the two Democratic candidates for president. With Hillary Clinton, you have a politician who bases her opinion on key issues depending upon which way the wind of public support is blowing–when the public favored the Iraq War, she favored the Iraq War, and when the tide of public opinion turned against the war, she turned against the war. On the other hand, with Barack Obama (who has been far more consistent and reasonable on the Iraq War than Clinton) you have a politician who is a great speaker, but whose rhetoric is more about style than substance (yes, he's the candidates of “change”, but WHAT policies exactly does he intend to change as president?).

I'm tired of people saying that third party and Independent candidates have no chance of winning and that this election is too important to “throw away your vote.” This election is as important as ALL elections are, and the best way to “throw away your vote” is to vote for a mediocre candidate, just as you did 4 years ago, and 4 years before that, and 4 years before that….

This isn't to say that we should support Nader. I have far too many disagreements with Mr. Nader to support him, just as I have numerous disagreements with McCain, Clinton, and Obama and am not likely to vote for either of them. But let's bring all opposing viewpoints to the table and criticize candidates on the basis of what really matters–their POLITICAL VIEWS–not on the basis of who the Democrat-Republican duopoly and their allies in the mainstream media tells us is and is not “acceptible.”

Cosmo & Chris are right. Nader did not “steal” votes from Gore, rather he was the Democrat in an election in which the 2 main candidates were Republicans…Bush was simply further to the right than Gore was.

In '04, I became disenchanted & simply stayed at home, as Kerry had no vision, & said that he would continue the War in Iraq & not change a damn thing.

It is the job of candidates to win voters over, not to bitch “Nader stole it from me!” when they fail to inspire people to vote for them. If they cannot do that, it is their own damn fault when they are not elected.

But still, I wish Nader would just give it up. He knows he won't win and should focus on something more productive, if he really wanted to make a difference. Long ago and far away I respected Nader (never voted for him). But now he just seems like a run again has-been.