southsider2k5 Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4312689/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 I am not amused. This will only hurt the nominated Democrat's chances, despite earlier suggestions on the board that you can't assume that a vote for Nader would have been a vote for the Democratic candidate. With such a diverse group of people comprising the "Anybody But Bush" legions, a single strong contender is better than having Nader in the mix to pull any of those votes. Not running as the Green candidate this time around, hopefully his influence will be minimal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 I am not amused. This will only hurt the nominated Democrat's chances, despite earlier suggestions on the board that you can't assume that a vote for Nader would have been a vote for the Democratic candidate. With such a diverse group of people comprising the "Anybody But Bush" legions, a single strong contender is better than having Nader in the mix to pull any of those votes. Not running as the Green candidate this time around, hopefully his influence will be minimal. Democrats are not OWED anything by the voters. They owe TO the voters. Make a more compelling platform than Nader, and the Greensters will vote Democratic. Cynically become a carbon copy of the GOP on many issues, and don't be suprised that quite a few young idealistic folk want nothing to do with you. It's that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Democrats are not OWED anything by the voters. They owe TO the voters. Make a more compelling platform than Nader, and the Greensters will vote Democratic. Cynically become a carbon copy of the GOP on many issues, and don't be suprised that quite a few young idealistic folk want nothing to do with you. It's that simple. You are correct, it is that simple. But in the upcoming election where we are all aware that votes "for Kerry" will really be votes "against Bush", and Kerry just happens to be the guy. I certainly don't want to see the "against Bush" votes split among possibly several better solutions (compared to Bush and Kerry) if the end result is that Bush wins. This is no time for idealism, it's time for ANYONE BUT BUSH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 You are correct, it is that simple. But in the upcoming election where we are all aware that votes "for Kerry" will really be votes "against Bush", and Kerry just happens to be the guy. I certainly don't want to see the "against Bush" votes split among possibly several better solutions (compared to Bush and Kerry) if the end result is that Bush wins. This is no time for idealism, it's time for ANYONE BUT BUSH. So you would compare this to the rise of the National Socialists made possible by the squabbles between communists and social democtrats or whatever else they were called back then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 So you would compare this to the rise of the National Socialists made possible by the squabbles between communists and social democtrats or whatever else they were called back then? Uuuhhh, ummm, yeeah sure. Is my ignorance showing yet? Good things have come from splitting entrenched voter bases. Harold Washington winning the Democratic Mayoral nomination in 1983 while Byrne and Daley 'split the white vote' is a good example. Washington was a much more effective Mayor than either of the other two, as Richie keeps reminding you all with his city circus antics. In the current situation, though, the consequences of splitting the entrenched 'anti-Bush' vote would be dire. Still, I don't think Nader will do nearly as well as he did in 2000 with the Greens, and even then he only got like 2-3% of the vote in the states where he was on the ballot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 I'm voting Nader, I think. I'd like to see them get funding from the US gov't Anyone but KERRY OR BUSH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Anyone but KERRY OR BUSH I think MaCain or Powell, to say nothing of my boy Clark would have been a solid choice. I have nothing against Kerry, just not that wild about him. Uuuhhh, ummm, yeeah sure. Is my ignorance showing yet? No, but mine is. I fumbled that connetion between pre-Nazi Germany....wrong parties, but point remains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Nader's running? oh darn... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 I just saw the Florida numbers from the 2000 election on the news and it put it in perspective. When it was all said and done, and the recount was suspended, Bush won in Florida by 537 votes. Nader got more than 97,000 votees in the state. Several Republicans were on the news cheering Nader on in 2004, saying that for sure most of the votes he got in 2000 would have otherwise gone Democratic and they hope to see a similar result this time around. Maybe the two-party system asw it stands now fails to represent all viewpoints, but this election is not the time to make a statement. And as much as I disliked tthe outcome, I understood people voting for the Green Party candidate in 2000 trying to get 5% of the vote to qualify for federal election funds. But, running as an Independent this time around, there at least won't be that impetus to vote for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Nader's running? oh darn... Do you have sumsync 'gainst Democrats/Liberals/Normal Americans, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Be Good Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 I hate Bush so now I have to hate Nadar. Dam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Do you have sumsync 'gainst Democrats/Liberals/Normal Americans, then? are you suggesting Democrats, as opposed to Republicans, are the "Normal Americans"?....because if so, then i would beg to differ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 i beg to triffer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 are you suggesting Democrats, as opposed to Republicans, are the "Normal Americans"?....because if so, then i would beg to differ I'm sure he meant 'moral', not 'normal' - Democrats are the MORAL Americans. :D I kid because I care... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Good things have come from splitting entrenched voter bases. Harold Washington winning the Democratic Mayoral nomination in 1983 while Byrne and Daley 'split the white vote' is a good example. Washington was a much more effective Mayor than either of the other two, as Richie keeps reminding you all with his city circus antics. Whoa there, Jim. Before he died, Harold was one of the LEAST effective mayors Chicago has seen in awhile--but it wasn't his fault at all. By all accounts, Harold was a fair guy, a nice guy, a good leader, and a decent enough politician--all traits that would have made him a good mayor, if not for Fast Eddie Vrdolyak and the Council Bloc that aligned to resist virtually every measure Harold tried to pass. It wasn't until right before he died that Harold's side on the council got enough members to override Vrdolyak's Bloc, but it wasn't soon enough to see him actually get anything done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 23, 2004 Author Share Posted February 23, 2004 Whoa there, Jim. Before he died, Harold was one of the LEAST effective mayors Chicago has seen in awhile--but it wasn't his fault at all. By all accounts, Harold was a fair guy, a nice guy, a good leader, and a decent enough politician--all traits that would have made him a good mayor, if not for Fast Eddie Vrdolyak and the Council Bloc that aligned to resist virtually every measure Harold tried to pass. It wasn't until right before he died that Harold's side on the council got enough members to override Vrdolyak's Bloc, but it wasn't soon enough to see him actually get anything done. I would call getting nothing done, way better for Chicago than the cronyism that has gone on for 4 terms under Don Daley. This city has become such a blantant neptotistic system it is discusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 I would call getting nothing done, way better for Chicago than the cronyism that has gone on for 4 terms under Don Daley. This city has become such a blantant neptotistic system it is discusting. I'm not sure. I agree there's a TON of nepostism and kitchen cabinet crap going on, but is Chicago in better shape now than it was when he got here? Overall, I'd say yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 23, 2004 Author Share Posted February 23, 2004 I'm not sure. I agree there's a TON of nepostism and kitchen cabinet crap going on, but is Chicago in better shape now than it was when he got here? Overall, I'd say yes. Daley was just lucky he was mayor during the biggest economic growth of the 20th century. And he still had to raise property, county and city taxes during all of this prosperity. The guy has been connected to so many scandals, failed projects, and just out right stupidity, that he would have been a one term mayor if he were in any other city. Harold Washingtons only mistake was being a moral man and trying to clean up the cess pool of Chicago politics. Of course he didn't get anything done, he was being stopped by the very people he was costing money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 are you suggesting Democrats, as opposed to Republicans, are the "Normal Americans"?....because if so, then i would beg to differ I grant you that right. Beg away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Maybe the two-party system asw it stands now fails to represent all viewpoints, but this election is not the time to make a statement. And as much as I disliked tthe outcome, I understood people voting for the Green Party candidate in 2000 trying to get 5% of the vote to qualify for federal election funds. But, running as an Independent this time around, there at least won't be that impetus to vote for him. FlaSoxxJim got it right... Speaking as someone who did vote for Nader in 2000, I knew that he wasn't going to win the election, but the goal was to earn 5% and the federal funding that went along with it. IIRC, the only state where he earned 5% was Oregon, where the Green party is firmly entrenched. Without the benefit of the Green party this time, he'll get less of the vote. Plus I think there are enough rational people in the "anybody-but-bush" camp, who realize they have to vote for the same candidate, with a realistic chance of winning. Many of those same people voted for nader 4 years ago. Am I the only one who thinks that Nader is going to have NO trouble raising money... I wouldn't be surprised to see staunchly Republican supporters sending money to the Nader camp, in hopes that he'll steal enough votes from Kerry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 FlaSoxxJim got it right... Speaking as someone who did vote for Nader in 2000, I knew that he wasn't going to win the election, but the goal was to earn 5% and the federal funding that went along with it. IIRC, the only state where he earned 5% was Oregon, where the Green party is firmly entrenched. Without the benefit of the Green party this time, he'll get less of the vote. Plus I think there are enough rational people in the "anybody-but-bush" camp, who realize they have to vote for the same candidate, with a realistic chance of winning. Many of those same people voted for nader 4 years ago. Am I the only one who thinks that Nader is going to have NO trouble raising money... I wouldn't be surprised to see staunchly Republican supporters sending money to the Nader camp, in hopes that he'll steal enough votes from Kerry. Plus he also has to get the signatures to even get on the ballot in the first place as an independent. He's such a self serving prick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Whoa there, Jim. Before he died, Harold was one of the LEAST effective mayors Chicago has seen in awhile--but it wasn't his fault at all. By all accounts, Harold was a fair guy, a nice guy, a good leader, and a decent enough politician--all traits that would have made him a good mayor, if not for Fast Eddie Vrdolyak and the Council Bloc that aligned to resist virtually every measure Harold tried to pass. It wasn't until right before he died that Harold's side on the council got enough members to override Vrdolyak's Bloc, but it wasn't soon enough to see him actually get anything done. Yeah, by and large, your assessment is better than mine. Time has allowed me to paint a picture of himmeing more effective than he probably was. I should have said fair, competent, etc., rather than effective. He did have measurable success in certain areas, and one of them was in public health care at the time. My dad was the Deputy Commish of Health for the city through his administration, and he made more progress then than he did either before or after and the Mayor's office gave the department most of what it asked for in terms of resources. Of course it was early in the R.M. Daley reagn that my dad got axed in a completely political firing (no political favors from the Mayor for THAT SS Irishman) to appease teh nun that ran Catholic Services by putting one of her cronies in place. Amazingly, I think Dad still votes for that Putz every election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 what i find hilarious is how the Democratic party is basically telling him to sit down and not run. What right is it of theirs to tell another what to do? It woul dbe hysterical if Nader responds by asking Kerry to step down so he (Nader) has a better chance of winning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 what i find hilarious is how the Democratic party is basically telling him to sit down and not run. What right is it of theirs to tell another what to do? It woul dbe hysterical if Nader responds by asking Kerry to step down so he (Nader) has a better chance of winning. What I find more hilarious is how Karl Rove essentially stole the nomination from McCain in 2000 by doing phone banks that said: "Would you be less likely or more likely to vote for McCain if it was known that he had an illegitmate black child?" etc. etc. Or the fact that Ashcroft spent $8000 of taxpayer money to cover up a statue's breast. Those are just a few of the funny moments to come out of these 4 years of ultra-nationalist insanity. This piece from Democratic Underground took the words right out of my mouth: Appearing on NBC News' Meet the Press on Sunday, Nader announced that he is once again running for president of the United States. It seems that Saint Ralph couldn't stand the idea of sitting this one out, and putting the interests of the country ahead of his own massive ego. He has once again illustrated how he is the nation's Number One Bush Enabler. Apparently, multimillionaire Nader has been too busy counting his savings from the Bush tax cut to notice or care that the Bush Administration has damn near ruined our country in less than four years. After a few perfunctory and lackluster criticisms against Bush, Nader (as usual) heaped most of his contempt on those of us who are actually out here trying to defeat the illegitimate, unelected moron. In a particularly gag-inducing bit of spin, Nader said that his critics on the left were "against democracy, against freedom." Funny, that sounds kinda like what Ashcroft and Bush said about us when we dared to criticize them these past few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.