Post Nader Post.
Yesterday's rant got some reactions from the faithful. The opening of this dialogue was the prime intention of my post. We need to keep discussing this election until it comes to pass. Sitting back idly will not help us dig out of the hole we are presently sitting in. Thankfully, Mr. Oveis gave me his thoughts on Nader's decision to enter the race, and it would be beneficially for all of you to read them:
First, for Kerry, this will almost guarantee him the nomination. Many voters who vote tomorrow and on Super Tuesday will be voting in response to the Nader announcement. These voters, who may have at one point favored Edwards, will be much less likely to vote for an underdog candidate. Instead, they'll want to demonstrate party unity and vote for the candidate who has broad support. Kerry has shown that he can get votes from poor/rich, white/black/latino, and union/management.
Second, the one thing that the pundits have learned from this year's Democratic primaries is that an abundance of candidates does not necessarily hurt the party. Six months ago, all the talking heads were going on and on about how the 10 Democratic candidates would destroy each other, and by the end, Dean would no longer have the money or strength to defeat Bush. Instead, what we've seen is that after Iowa the Democrats would much rather attack Bush than each other. And, as a result, Bush's poll numbers have plummeted. I believe a similar effect could happen with Nader. Most of his attacks will of course be directed towards Bush, as he announced today. He will mobilize the left the same way that Dean did, and ultimately those votes will go to Kerry.
Third party candidates in 2004 have much less appeal than they did in 2000. In 2000, there were few issues that votes could cite to differentiate between the Democrat and Republican candidates. Today, the country is much more polarized and virtually any voter could cite a host of issues that separate Democrats and Republicans (the wars, trade, the environment, etc.). Independents are going to take a beating this year.
Finally, I don't think of Nader as an egotistical maniac as many people have described him as. I, too, voted for him in 2000. It will be impossible for him to be on the ballot in most states. He doesn't have the resources to complete such a feat. And ultimately, I believe he'll drop out days before the election. I think he knows he's partially responsible for giving Bush the presidency and he wants to restore his reputation. He knows he can't win, and so he wants to be a part of the machine that brings down Bush. Don't worry; he won't be taking any votes away.
Though pessimism is often my strong suit, these strong points have helped bring my blood pressure back to normal.
Yesterday's rant got some reactions from the faithful. The opening of this dialogue was the prime intention of my post. We need to keep discussing this election until it comes to pass. Sitting back idly will not help us dig out of the hole we are presently sitting in. Thankfully, Mr. Oveis gave me his thoughts on Nader's decision to enter the race, and it would be beneficially for all of you to read them:
First, for Kerry, this will almost guarantee him the nomination. Many voters who vote tomorrow and on Super Tuesday will be voting in response to the Nader announcement. These voters, who may have at one point favored Edwards, will be much less likely to vote for an underdog candidate. Instead, they'll want to demonstrate party unity and vote for the candidate who has broad support. Kerry has shown that he can get votes from poor/rich, white/black/latino, and union/management.
Second, the one thing that the pundits have learned from this year's Democratic primaries is that an abundance of candidates does not necessarily hurt the party. Six months ago, all the talking heads were going on and on about how the 10 Democratic candidates would destroy each other, and by the end, Dean would no longer have the money or strength to defeat Bush. Instead, what we've seen is that after Iowa the Democrats would much rather attack Bush than each other. And, as a result, Bush's poll numbers have plummeted. I believe a similar effect could happen with Nader. Most of his attacks will of course be directed towards Bush, as he announced today. He will mobilize the left the same way that Dean did, and ultimately those votes will go to Kerry.
Third party candidates in 2004 have much less appeal than they did in 2000. In 2000, there were few issues that votes could cite to differentiate between the Democrat and Republican candidates. Today, the country is much more polarized and virtually any voter could cite a host of issues that separate Democrats and Republicans (the wars, trade, the environment, etc.). Independents are going to take a beating this year.
Finally, I don't think of Nader as an egotistical maniac as many people have described him as. I, too, voted for him in 2000. It will be impossible for him to be on the ballot in most states. He doesn't have the resources to complete such a feat. And ultimately, I believe he'll drop out days before the election. I think he knows he's partially responsible for giving Bush the presidency and he wants to restore his reputation. He knows he can't win, and so he wants to be a part of the machine that brings down Bush. Don't worry; he won't be taking any votes away.
Though pessimism is often my strong suit, these strong points have helped bring my blood pressure back to normal.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home