US Presidential Elections

[Pop]

Nader's just about through. Unless you're Eddie Vedder.

[Guard Dog]

As for Nader, *sighs* a no-name will not win.

 

Of course he won't win, or even come close. But think about this, in Florida in 2000 he received around 19,800 out of about 3M votes. Would I be wrong in suggesting those 19K votes changed the course of world history?

[Sand]

Yes, you would be wrong.

 

The Electorial College chooses the President, not the general vote. The popular vote is meaningless in a Presidential election. The 2000 elections proved that.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Sand

[Meshugger]

I HAVE NEWS!

 

BIG BIG BIG NEWS!

 

HERE IT IS: Ralph Nader Planning Another Presidential Run

 

YESSSS!!!!!! My favorite candidate of all is getting back on that political horse and is going to ride it for all it's worth. Good Luck and Godspeed Ralph. I wish you all the best! Now you get in there and you fight for those liberal votes. Not even Barak can out liberal Nader. If you hate corporate greed WITHTEETH, Nader is your guy. If you want planned economics Pop, vote for Ralph. Sand if you want health care and want me to pay for it Go Green baby, Mr. Nader is your man.

 

All i know about Ralph Nader is that he has been a consumer-rights activist, and a great critic of the bigger parties (all smaller candidates are usually that though). However, i have never heard about him being a forefront for planned economy. Not even the leftest of the left in Europe propose such ideas (except for the communists).

 

Care to explain?

[Guard Dog]

Yes Sand, the national popular vote does not decide the election. However, the STATE popular vote decides who gets ALL of the electors of the state. Now consider this, in 2000 Bush won Florida by 1800 or so votes. So do you want to take another shot at my question?

[Guard Dog]

Care to explain?

Those were all tounge in cheek comments.

 

Now the part about his 2000 campaign changing history I was serious about that.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Guard Dog

[Meshugger]

Care to explain?

Those were all tounge in cheek comments.

 

Bleh, too tired to notice/understand

[Pop]

I HAVE NEWS!

 

BIG BIG BIG NEWS!

 

HERE IT IS: Ralph Nader Planning Another Presidential Run

 

YESSSS!!!!!! My favorite candidate of all is getting back on that political horse and is going to ride it for all it's worth. Good Luck and Godspeed Ralph. I wish you all the best! Now you get in there and you fight for those liberal votes. Not even Barak can out liberal Nader. If you hate corporate greed WITHTEETH, Nader is your guy. If you want planned economics Pop, vote for Ralph. Sand if you want health care and want me to pay for it Go Green baby, Mr. Nader is your man.

 

All i know about Ralph Nader is that he has been a consumer-rights activist, and a great critic of the bigger parties (all smaller candidates are usually that though). However, i have never heard about him being a forefront for planned economy. Not even the leftest of the left in Europe propose such ideas (except for the communists).

 

Care to explain?

Free market types don't like Nader because he's a consumer advocate, and consumer advocates push for gov't intervention, in Nader's case for the sake of safety. By interfering with the market, they make things less safe due to all the bright-eyed entrepeneurial safety upstarts with great ideas getting muscled out of business by inflexible government cartels. That, and the things they push for, safety regulations, workers' rights, that type of thing, push up costs. That's why China, a nation of cheap labor, makes more jeans than Cambodia, which has a phenomenal ethical record, 8-hour days and 3 months maternity leave. The market favors low costs.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Pop

[Sand]

Yes Sand, the national popular vote does not decide the election. However, the STATE popular vote decides who gets ALL of the electors of the state. Now consider this, in 2000 Bush won Florida by 1800 or so votes. So do you want to take another shot at my question?

 

Actually the Electorial College, at least in my state, can vote any way they feel like. The popular vote can go to the Republicans but the Electorial College can go Democrat, for example. Popular vote is meaningless.

[Azarkon]

The market favors low costs.

 

And always will. That's the thing with capitalism - if you regulate it in your country, companies just move somewhere else.

 

In this respect, methinks the Chinese are doing the smart thing - take advantage of the market for as long as you can and worry about labor rights once you've got enough funds to transition into a high-tech economy. Starting off with labor rights doesn't really work the way things are setup, because nobody will invest when there are cheaper opportunities elsewhere.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Azarkon

[Guard Dog]

Yes Sand, the national popular vote does not decide the election. However, the STATE popular vote decides who gets ALL of the electors of the state. Now consider this, in 2000 Bush won Florida by 1800 or so votes. So do you want to take another shot at my question?

 

Actually the Electorial College, at least in my state, can vote any way they feel like. The popular vote can go to the Republicans but the Electorial College can go Democrat, for example. Popular vote is meaningless.

 

(Sigh) Ok, but in the history of the US, it has ALWAYS followed the popular vote because that was what is was meant to do. Now, back to my original point. I'm trying to see if anyone here (besides me) understands why an insignificant third party candidate entering this election is important.

 

There is a historical precedent here. C'mon people I should not have to connect these dots for you!

Edited February 23, 2008 by Guard Dog

[Sand]

It will effect the popular vote but until the Electorial College is removed it will have no effect on the outcome. As for Nader I think he is rather insignificant at this point. Everyone knows that 3rd party candidates will never have any sort of chance and this election is going to be too important to waste time on them. Electorial College will vote for who ever they wish, regardless what the popular voting results will be.

[Guard Dog]

It will effect the popular vote but until the Electorial College is removed it will have no effect on the outcome. As for Nader I think he is rather insignificant at this point. Everyone knows that 3rd party candidates will never have any sort of chance and this election is going to be too important to waste time on them. Electorial College will vote for who ever they wish, regardless what the popular voting results will be.

So your answer is that Naders 2000 candidacy had no impact on the outcome of the 2000 election? I'm sorry but if it is, you fail Guard Dogs Political Science class. Now where the heck is Pop? I bet HE can answer correctly.

[Sand]

I am saying that the popular vote for the presidential elections is meaningless. I doubt Nader will have any significant impact in the 2008 elections.

[Guard Dog]

I am saying that the popular vote for the presidential elections is meaningless. I doubt Nader will have any significant impact in the 2008 elections.

Are you still here? You failed my class. But seriously, I'm not about to engage in a meaningless debate over the electoral college with you that will accomplish nothing, feed your rampant cynicsim, and derail this thread, taking away from an important point I'm trying to make that you are not seeing.

[Arkan]

It will effect the popular vote but until the Electorial College is removed it will have no effect on the outcome. As for Nader I think he is rather insignificant at this point. Everyone knows that 3rd party candidates will never have any sort of chance and this election is going to be too important to waste time on them. Electorial College will vote for who ever they wish, regardless what the popular voting results will be.

So your answer is that Naders 2000 candidacy had no impact on the outcome of the 2000 election? I'm sorry but if it is, you fail Guard Dogs Political Science class. Now where the heck is Pop? I bet HE can answer correctly.

 

 

It's ok, Sand usually can't see the forest for the trees. Nader "stole" votes from the Dems in 2000, effectively netting Bush the popular vote in FL, thus winning the national election. I don't think enough people will care about him this time (hopefully), and I also don't think it will matter.

 

Once Obama gets the Dem's nod, he'll wipe the floor with McCain in any debate. Obama has much less dirt on his hands than McCain as well. He's flip-flopped more than Kerry, which is quite an accomplishment. That, and he wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 more years, and the general public does NOT want to hear that.

 

Obama is much more presidential and has the ability to unite this country. Experience? Pah. You know who else was a one-term senator with little experience that nobody thought would win, who then became one of our nation's best presidents? I'll give you guys a hint, it's Abraham Lincoln. Of course, he was assassinated, so....

[Sand]

Are you still here? You failed my class. But seriously, I'm not about to engage in a meaningless debate over the electoral college with you that will accomplish nothing, feed your rampant cynicsim, and derail this thread, taking away from an important point I'm trying to make that you are not seeing.

 

I see the point you are making but my point is that Nader will have next to no impact in the 2008 election. The 2000 election is done and gone. Lets worry about now than dwell on things that can't be changed.

[Meshugger]

I did the test that Enoch posted a couple of pages back, and i got 76% for Gravel (yay! always loved his classical liberal social policy) and 71% for Obama. Oh, and i got 70% for Ron Paul. This test is strange.

 

I remember doing a similar test at the university and i became "centrist-right"

Edited February 23, 2008 by Meshugger

[Nick_i_am]

Thank you for being more reasonable. As for MY credibility, if YOU have faith in McCain I won't try to diminish your enthusiasim, like I said to i_am_nick, come shower me with I TOLD YOU SOs if McCain wins!

 

Except that nobody is telling you anything, they're asking you about the foundations for your opinions.

[Guard Dog]

It's ok, Sand usually can't see the forest for the trees. Nader "stole" votes from the Dems in 2000, effectively netting Bush the popular vote in FL, thus winning the national election. I don't think enough people will care about him this time (hopefully), and I also don't think it will matter.

 

Once Obama gets the Dem's nod, he'll wipe the floor with McCain in any debate. Obama has much less dirt on his hands than McCain as well. He's flip-flopped more than Kerry, which is quite an accomplishment. That, and he wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 more years, and the general public does NOT want to hear that.

 

Obama is much more presidential and has the ability to unite this country. Experience? Pah. You know who else was a one-term senator with little experience that nobody thought would win, who then became one of our nation's best presidents? I'll give you guys a hint, it's Abraham Lincoln. Of course, he was assassinated, so....

Absolutely correct Arkan! You get a B+ (the + for the Lincoln comparison). Now, there is one more thing you are omitting about this election that will make a Nader entry significant. Care to take a shot at what that is? Your B+ could become an A+. There is one more piece to this puzzle.

[Arkan]

It's ok, Sand usually can't see the forest for the trees. Nader "stole" votes from the Dems in 2000, effectively netting Bush the popular vote in FL, thus winning the national election. I don't think enough people will care about him this time (hopefully), and I also don't think it will matter.

 

Once Obama gets the Dem's nod, he'll wipe the floor with McCain in any debate. Obama has much less dirt on his hands than McCain as well. He's flip-flopped more than Kerry, which is quite an accomplishment. That, and he wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 more years, and the general public does NOT want to hear that.

 

Obama is much more presidential and has the ability to unite this country. Experience? Pah. You know who else was a one-term senator with little experience that nobody thought would win, who then became one of our nation's best presidents? I'll give you guys a hint, it's Abraham Lincoln. Of course, he was assassinated, so....

Absolutely correct Arkan! You get a B+ (the + for the Lincoln comparison). Now, there is one more thing you are omitting about this election that will make a Nader entry significant. Care to take a shot at what that is? Your B+ could become an A+. There is one more piece to this puzzle.

 

 

Hmm...unless you think he's going to steal votes this election as well, I have no idea. If so, I think it will be a moot point, as Obama will soundly beat McCain. I give up. What is it?

[Guard Dog]

Ok, here is how I see the dem primary finishing up. Obama will pick up 2/3 of the remaining pledged delegates which will send him into the convention without enough to win unless he gets at least 350 of the uncommitted super delegates at minimum. If he does not and Hillary gets the rest of the supers she will win the nomination without winning the vote. Katie bar the door if that happens. The legions of voters who turned out for Obama will feel disenfranchised and will not support Hillary (remember she has positioned herself as a moderate and has alienated the far left, they were the big Obama backers). Where will they go then? Not to McCain certainly. Nader now gives them a place to vote to show their displeasure at DNC perfidy. Nader only needs to peel off enough votes to make a different in 1-2 states to turn the election. In 2000 if 1801 Nader votes had gone to Gore, George W Bush would be no more than a historical footnote.

 

The other scenario goes this way. Obama wins the nomination but the spread it less than 400 delegates. The total delegates disallowed from Florida and Michigan are 486. Hillary won both states big and both are winner-take-all. So if the spread is close enough (and it is really looking that way) Hillary will likely sue the DNC to seat those delegates. After all, the Republicans seated theirs and FL and MI were completely lawful in changing primary dates. If she wins the suit and the delegates are seated she wins the nomination and the Obama people will look at her as a sore loser that had to go to court to take what she could not win. You get the above scenario all over again. If she loses it will create a big problem for the Dems in MI and FL because their votes did not count. MI is solidly blue but Florida is a swing state that could go either way. That would likely swing Florida red because McCain is popular with the Dems here and Nader will be on the ballot too.

 

Of course if Obama wins big in the next 5 primaries none of the above can happen and Nader will make no difference. Ditto is either candidate wins big in the general election. But I think this election will be a lot closer than many of you seem to want to believe. Yes Obama is charismatic and energetic all but he is a dyed in the wool liberal and there are a lot of people (like me) who simply do no want another liberal in the White House. The last one (Jimmy Carter) was a complete disaster .

 

Thats my reasoning on why Nader MAY be significant.

[alanschu]

It will effect the popular vote but until the Electorial College is removed it will have no effect on the outcome.

 

Of course. It's not like the Electoral College makes there decisions in any way based on a state's popular vote.

[Pidesco]

It will effect the popular vote but until the Electorial College is removed it will have no effect on the outcome.

 

Of course. It's not like the Electoral College makes there decisions in any way based on a state's popular vote.

 

I believe there have been some instances where the Electoral College made their choices against the respective state's popular vote.

 

And, anyway, the Electoral College just adds an extra layer of bureaucracy while making the whole election process less democratic.

[Walsingham]

Of course if Obama wins big in the next 5 primaries none of the above can happen and Nader will make no difference. Ditto is either candidate wins big in the general election. But I think this election will be a lot closer than many of you seem to want to believe. Yes Obama is charismatic and energetic all but he is a dyed in the wool liberal and there are a lot of people (like me) who simply do no want another liberal in the White House. The last one (Jimmy Carter) was a complete disaster .

 

 

I agree that Carter was a disaster. However, depending on one's perspective, the conservatives (or whatever the term is) have been disasters too.

 

This raises a new point, which is: what if it's a bad thing for Obama, a liberal at a time of international crisis, to be in the White house? I don't believe his policies will work _at this time_ (another time, fantastic). Result - he looks like an idiot; liberalism looks stupid.