It's really, really hard to believe that Nader is drawing 6%.. In the 2000 election, where he had my support and the support of many others, he only drew what, 3%, 4% of the popular vote? Now that his name is mud with most left leaners, he's suddenly getting 6%?? Not likely. Besides, he's unlikely to get on many ballots, half at most.

Be that as it may, he still shouldn't run. The race with Nader in it is certainly unsafe at any speed.

FOR GOD'S SAKE, again I hear rubbish like Nader is taking votes away from Kerry. NO HE IS NOT. What, now democratic politicians are so full of themselves that they think voters owe them their allegiance? It's this arrogance from the Democrats that makes voters not vote for them. If Nader was out of the picture, I think his 6 voters wouldn't vote for Kerry. They would probably sit at home feeling unrepresented by the democrats. The democrats should keep in mind that less than half of eligible voters actually vote. 100 million people do not feel represented by the Democrats. Why are democrats whining about Nader's chumchange? Why don't they go after the 100 million non voters? Because it's hard work and Democrats rather whine.

Somehow, the last name of the Nadir support above is just so fitting...

It's really too bad that the Internet gives a too-loud voice to these yahoos...

I went to Nader.org and posted another respectful plea for him to stop this.

GUYS!!!!
Where are you?
Have we read this mornings paper?
Are you going to comment on the interogation?
I can't believe Im suddenly terrified to have shared on a blog.
Its like the dawn of communism in Russia.
Will every comment be searched?
I can't believe the Statesman didn't print every one of our individual names.

Quite frankly, even if Ralph does not effect the outcome of the election, you should not vote for him.

He's an abusive employer who uses aggressive union busting tactics. See http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm for more information.

It's not a pretty picture. He thinks that he's "above" having to deal fairly with working conditions and union issues.

Voting Nader is like voting Wal-Mart.

You are buying the add, not the reality.

Byron is correct. This exposure will call attention to this blog, and that is a shame. I came over curios to see some meaningful dialogue on issues.

I want those 15 minutes of my life back.

Methinks "Warren" is an idiot. Didn't even comment on the correct post.

...Now that his name is mud with most left leaners, he's suddenly getting 6%?? Not likely.

The margin of error is +- 3.5%, so the survey's data only means that it is probable for Nader to get between 3.5% and 9.5% of the vote...

Remember that polls are getting less accurate.

Lots of people block telemarketing centers that don't send out Caller ID, and lots refuse to talk to pollsters.

I really don't know why anyone is so worked up about Nader this time around.

First thing, this is a national poll 8 months before the election so it means nothing. State to state polls are the only thing that matter and even those do not say much this far out. Just look back to January. Up until 4 days before Iowa polls showed it to be a Dean v. Gephardt match up. They were very wrong because things changed.

That stated, let's look at this poll.

It shows Kerry gaining about 8% in 2 months while Bush loses 8% in the same time. That 6% might just be previously undecided folks. Also, when you look at the history of 3rd party candidates over the last 30 years, you notice that their poll numbers are almost always higher then their actual vote total. In 2000, the last polls showed Nader at about 5% and he got less then 3%. If that stays the same, then Kerry would come out ahead.

One other thing, add Kerry's and Nader's number together and you get 51%! That means that more then half of the public does not want Bush around anymore. This is a very, very, Kerry good thing.

Does any of that make sense?

One last bit on Nader, if someone looks at Bush and what he has done to our country over the last three years and then looks at Kerry and does not think he would be better, well that person would not vote for Kerry even without Nader in the race. So stop worrying.

Ralph is running. We can either except it and move on or we can keep giving him free publicity by arguing about wither or not he should run. Just remember, every moment we spend arguing is a moment we do not spend defeating George W. Bush.

So let's keep moving forward until we have a President Kerry.

Nader is NOT going to get more votes than he did in 2000. If the polls say 6%, then you should stop putting so much faith in polls. They are obviously wack.
Look at the inflated poll results for Dean, pre-Iowa.

Appealing to Nader himself will get you nowhere. He is motivated strictly by ego and doesn't give a flip what effect his candidacy will have on the election.
You need to make your case directly to potential Nader voters.
Many Americans, especially younger ones, don't really understand how the electoral college works. An education campaign would do a lot of good. Like any campaign, you have to keep repeating your message in a memorable way.

In the end, I doubt if Nader will get many more votes in 2004 than the Libertarians or the Natural Law Party.

It should be noted that this is a national poll, but Nader has no national organization or party behind him. Without the Green Party orginization behind him he will have a difficult time getting on the ballot in any state. The 6% he has in this poll is from the anyone but Bush/Kerry voters whom may not have the opportunity to vote for Ralph. The real measure of Nader's effect will be from polls of likely voters in any swing state that he manages to qualify for the ballot.

I'm skeptical about the skeleton closet link about Nader... look at what they say about the other candidates too. I seriously doubt that the worst thing about Kerry is his guitar playing. http://www.realchange.org/kerry.htm

When deciding whether or not to have a presidential candidate in 2000, the Green Party split into two different groups (GPUSA and GPUS) because of different views on the issue. One of the Green Party's (the international organization) ten key values is grassroots democracy. When some GP members wanted to have a presidential candidate in 2000, others thought this went against the key value because it wouldn't be bottom up (there aren't many local and state GP elected officials yet, so they thought that should be achieved first). I am explaining this in order to point out that the negative quotes on the skelton page are from people who were against having a presidential candidate, and therefore against Nader, from the beginning.

The site also claims that the Green Party no longer supports Nader, which simply is not true. The majority of people at the national convention wanted Nader to run again. He declined the offer to run on their ticket saying that it would be better for a Democrat to win than to have Bush in office for four more years. I do not know what caused him to change his mind about running, and I don't know whether or not I will vote for him or Kerry. If I did not live in Texas and did live in a state that allocates electoral college votes more fairly (proportional representation instead of the winner-takes-all system we currently have), I would without a doubt vote for the Democrat. However, since I live in a state where my vote doesn't count unless it goes to Bush, there's no real reason to give it to the "lesser of two evils."