Friday, August 06, 2004

Nader: Democratic Party Should Live Up to Its Name

from The Los Angeles Times
Though the Democrats have the right to robustly oppose my independent presidential campaign, they don't have the right to engage in dirty tricks designed to deny millions of voters the opportunity to choose who should be the next president.


Sheryl said...

"We estimate that less than 10% of the individuals contributing $1,000 or more are Republicans, while exit polls from 2000 show that nearly 25% of Nader voters were registered Republicans."

Perhaps it is cynical of me, but it seems like he should be citing who did these exit polls, no?

I know my personal experience is not statistical, but I can think of 13 people off the top of my head who have outright told me they voted for Nader in 2000. Not one of them is even remotely Republican. In fact, my brother Steve is the only moderate amongst them, and he only voted for Nader because he figured it didn't make a difference in Texas. It's possible that more Republicans might have supported Nader in more moderate states, but his numbers sure don't fit any reality I have been exposed to. Do you know any Republican Nader supporters, Ryan?

I also think it's a bit suspect that Nader is citing his own estimates. Surely some university group have evaluated his donations. I haven't looked, but it seems like some group like Vote Smart or Open Secrets would be examining issues like that.

TheRadicalModerate said...

Okay, I did a little research (only an hour) and I can find no indication of exit polling on Nader Dems or Reps. However, what I can extrapolate (though it is statistically unsound) is that there does seem to be a 20% take-away of Bush leaners to Nader. This can be shown by comparing 10 separate polls to date. In 6 of them, when considering Nader in the race, Kerry loses 2% and Bush 1%. In 4, Kerry loses 3%, Bush 0%. Averaging these out we get Kerry loses 2.4%, Bush .6%, thus a 4 to 1 margin, e.g. 80 to 20% losses.
However, a few disturbing things I did find. The Washington RepComm turned in a petition to get Nader on the ballot containing 40,000 Republican signatures. Even Nader cannot be naive enough to know this is simply to hurt Kerry. Have the Republicans done the same in barely red states?
Evidently, there was a (probably very) small effort on the part of Republicans living in blue states to vote for Nader in 2000. Why? Because that way Nader would run in 2004. This is as dishonest as the vote trading attempted by Democrats.

TheRadicalModerate said...

BTW, I forgot to mention. I, too, have never met a Nader supporter who was a Bush leaner. My brother voted Nader but I can't see him ever voting for Bush. Most Nader supporters I knew of were environmentalists (thus anti-Bush).

Sheryl said...

Hmmmm...I hadn't noticed the new postings on this link. There are so many, it's hard to keep up with the latest ones.

OK, Nader. I don't think if Nader were really going after Republican votes that he would be targeting all his arguement against Kerry and the democrats. I think that is the biggest give away that he's a fraud. If he is trying to convert republicans, what good would that do?

I've always thought he's a hypocrite. Now his supporters....I don't think they are hypocritical. I just think they have an idealogical blindspot-- they value their ideas of perfection over reality. In that way they sabatoge their own ideals.

I mean, let's face it. Nader did actually run in 2000, and the goal was nirvana then too. The gola was not achievable within the context of reality, and the result was Bush. So to ignore context is very big mistake. Sometimes you do have the conditions to change things, but sometimes you have to create the conditions first and then move. The last four years have made it less likely for a multiparty system, not more likely. It's also undermined a lot of things the progressive community have been working on for years.

You's think that someone who worked so long for improving automobile standards would take a few moments and realize that another 4 years of Bush are likely to do in our environment completely. And Bush would be a lame duck President, because he would not have to worry about re-election. With a Republican Congress, he could do anything. I think it's sad that people don't think about these things. Oh well.