But, if he's just going to jump in as a spoiler, I don't see how the net effect can be anything other than what occured in the 2000 election debacle.

And I don't think this country can afford to go through another one of those.

He was RIGHT about Gore, less we forget who Al picked as his running mate.

I have voted for Nader in EVERY election since '96, and will continue to do so. I REFUSE to hold my nose to vote. I am slightly more appreciative of what shreds are left of our democracy that most of the Stalinists left on this board.

That having been said, a run off format would be tremendously better.

What makes him think that him being a candidate will help the political situation in this country one iota?

Isn't Mike Gravel already spreading the "shake up the establishment" message (or, the "throw a rock in the lake that is our government" message)? Without being a real threat to the outcome of the election?

...but I can't help but agree with him on Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, while the system is still corrupt, I I still won't be voting for anyone, Republican, Democrat or otherwise, who continues to support the war in Iraq. I don't think it's too harsh to say that when you vote for Democrats, you vote for killing people. Look what happened when they got Congress. MORE TROOPS IN IRAQ. MORE DEAD PEOPLE.

Why should I vote for them?

I can't think of any way in which we are better of because he ran in the last elections. I'm open to suggestions....

Full disclosure: I voted for Nader in 2000, but lived in a state that would never have voted for Bush, so felt it was "safe".

Just. Stop. Running!

At best, he did a lot more than that. Nader tirelessly reminded people that the two corporate parties would not end the war, would in fact continue to fund it, and would continue to work for their best interests: the corporations. Those are their largest donors, and these donors push Dems/Repubs toward policies that hurt the people.

I believe that there has to be an alternative to Democrats and Republicans, don't you? The Democrats have the power, and they are doing nothing to stop the war. They gave Bush the surge, they gave him $120 BILLION. What kind of opposition is that? Nader is working for that alternative, so I support him and anyone else who's doing the same.

As far as Nader is concerned, yes, Bush and Gore are exactly the same. Nader has been ignored by the Dems for 20-plus years. Neither the Dems not the Republicans give a shit about the issues that Nader cares about.* His ego can't handle that.

*He doesn't care one wit about the poor, women's rights, or gay rights.

In '00, the net effect was that Bush was elected president. I absolutely do not believe that most Nader voters would not have voted. Every single Nader voter I know would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't been running (and would have voted for him if we had been in a swing state). I totally agree with you that there should be an alternative to Republicans and Democrats (which is why I even voted Nader in the first place, to give the Greens 5% of the popular vote). But, in the end, I firmly believed that Bush would have been so terrible for our country as President, that I would have sacrificed that good for the good of not having Bush be President.

In '04, I appreciate that he gave people the option to vote for an anti-war candidate, but, what has been the net effect? We still have no viable solution to the situation in Iraq. Did he actually accomplish anything with his tireless reminding?

But this? Seriously, I know you are against the system, but I liked you better when you shut the hell up and keep working with people instead of name-calling and making yourself out like the great hope of the nation. I didn't vote for him in 04, and I won't in 08.

How about him getting votes from people that:

A - wouldn't have voted anyhow

B - wouldn't have voted for a mainstream party candidate.

Id vote for Pat Buchanan before any of these pussy ass democrats who can't stand up with a spine and act out the convictions that they claim to share with the majority of the american public.

Instead, they keep shoveling shit and calling it ice cream. The good little democrats eat the shit and think they are getting to better of the "Man".

47% of the Nader voters to Gore
21% to Bush
30% would have abstained from voting

All right, I overstated. But what about his statement calling those issues "gonadal politics?" He doesn't care about the real victims of Bush as much as his pet anti-corporate issues.

On the issue of corporate influence, Democrats and Republicans may as well be identical. They will do nothing to stop or mitigate that influence.

For the record, there's no way I would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't been running in 2000. I might have written in Bill Bradley or Paul Wellstone or pulled the lever for a really fringe third party, but I wouldn't have voted for Gore.

In hindsight, Gore looks like a fucking statesman and Clinton's triangulating half-measures look like the New Deal. But that's just overreacting in the other direction, thanks to the horrific debacle that is George W. Bush.

But Nader's even more delusional than any of us. He's had seven years of this nightmare just like the rest of us, and yet he's still talking like it's 1999. I think it's because ultimately his entire career has been about himself and not about the ideas he champions. He's not personally hurt by policy differences between the parties, so why care that millions of other people are? Someone has to perform an intervention, except that he's alienated all of his old allies and friends.

Oh, and if Gore was the nominee this time, I'd vote for him without hesitation. I'd prefer if it were Edwards, Obama, or even Hillary though. The second he has any real taste at power, we'll have the old Al Gore back, and while he was technically elected I don't think he could repeat the feat. If electability's the deal, there are half a dozen better choices already running.

Fuck off, Ralph. You're a self-centered, self-righteous asshole. Kind of like Bush.

So long as you're voting FOR him, because of his specific stances, and NOT as a way to express your antagonism AGAINST someone else, then I totally support your decision, even though I vehemently disagree with it.

If you're just voting for Nader as a protest against the two-party system, then a hearty "Fuck You", because you're NOT making things BETTER.