Green Party in?

Seemingly, Ralph Nader will be a contender in this years elections, too. (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4409950)

Will his 2.7 (or so) number of votes, as declared my many Democrats, cost the Dems. the election this year, too? Will this surprising announcement aid, hurt or have no effect on president Bush? Is Nader really supporting consumers, or is this just an act of ego?

Personally, I was simply surprised. I must say I wasn't expecting that.

Ralph Nader does not have the endorsement of the Green Party this year. He's just running because he wants to.

A vote for Nader is a wasted vote, as far as I'm concerned. I'm voting Democrat this year.

And yeah, I wasn't really expecting it either. It saddens me, I must say, as it does somewhat steal votes from the Democrats. But whatever, I guess.

Yes. Personally, I've never seen any real benefit springing forth for voting Green, or for any other independent. Last election all he did was "steal" votes from Gore. It would seem that this year, however, he won't have the same impact, but will probably grab some votes here and there, nonetheless.

Who knows? I suppose we'll just have to see. I was all for Dean this year, but alas, that idea is done with and out. :mad:

Originally posted by demi_god
I was all for Dean this year, but alas, that idea is done with and out. :mad:
The movement lives on! Don't let the traditional party powers marginalize your vote.

and unfortunately, if dean is up for election next time there IS a presidential election, that'll probably be because bush would have won another term.

bleh.

kerry would still be far better than bush though, imo. just about ANYONE would be far better than bush.

I vote for green party here, of course, in Spain things aren't as dual as in USA, where third parties barely get anything.

Nader didn't cost Gore the election. If people thought Gore (or Bush) was better than Nader, they would've voted for one of them instead. If Gore needed people who were better than him to quit to make room for him to win, he didn't deserve to win. If people would vote for candidates they think are good rather than guessing what everyone else will vote and voting for the candidate they think is "good enough and has a chance of winning", maybe our election system would work like it's supposed to.

They need to let me run US elections. Have a first and second choice so you make sure you don't accidentally give support to your worst choice.

Yes! Election Booth to work again!

I think more people will vote for a Democrat this year, just to make sure Bush gets no more term.

Sadly, I can't vote until NEXT Preselection.

As much as I don't want him to run at all because I just don't want bush there...I do agree with why he feels more people should run and things like that. I will not vote for him but I do support what he is trying to 'say'.

Originally posted by eestlinc
They need to let me run US elections. Have a first and second choice so you make sure you don't accidentally give support to your worst choice. yesh.

Originally posted by edczxcvbnm
As much as I don't want him to run at all because I just don't want bush there...I do agree with why he feels more people should run and things like that. I will not vote for him but I do support what he is trying to 'say'. yesh.

I voted Green last time, pondering National this time.

OH ALLIANCE, WE NEED YOU! ;_;

Originally posted by Calliope
I voted Green last time, pondering National this time.

OH ALLIANCE, WE NEED YOU! ;_; The NZ Green Party scares me.

I prefer to avoid voting for groups with strong views on any particular issue, where other pressing matters are overlooked as a result.

I've heard a number of ideological arguments that support voting for Nader over the Democratic nominee, but I don't buy any of them. To me, nothing's worth having Bush in office for another four years. (There's absolutely nothing anyone can do to convince me that Nader might win, either.) I'm all for breaking the bonds of the two-party system, but this isn't the election to be doing it. My two cents.

I heard an interview with Nader. The reporter was bringing up several things about people asking that he not run this year, saying that now was not the time and politely asking him to refrain from running. He was getting rather angry and started babbling about his right to make his voice heard, something he seems to feel he can only do through running for president, not by appearing on television and the radio (which was where he was being interviewed this particular time) and in public forums and discussions. He said that the people asking him not to run were asking him to give up his right to free speech. The thing going through my mind at this point was "who WOULD vote for this cretin!?"

I'm certainly not voting for him.

Originally posted by Big D
The NZ Green Party scares me.

I prefer to avoid voting for groups with strong views on any particular issue, where other pressing matters are overlooked as a result.

Some of their views are irrelevant (ie: marjuana use), but others involving education and obviously the environment appeal to me.

They are, however, such a minor party that voting for them doesn't do much.

The marijuana use is relevant. If an individual gets caught with weed you do YEARS in prison alongside violent criminals where you'll most probably get raped. Prisons degenerate nonviolent criminals into violent ones with no prospects of employment or education after doing their time. Until the entire criminal prison system is reformed its best to keep most nonviolent offenders out.

Back to the topic, I do agree that this might not be the election to throw in a 3rd party vote, but Nadar did not cost Gore the last election. First, Gore got more votes than Bush. He lost in the electoral college. Second, Gore is lame. In fact the whole Democratic Party is lame. If Gore wanted Nader's votes then he shoulda ran on Nader's platform. Specifically in the state of Florida, where Bush won by 500 votes, the GOP spent 3x as much as the opposition. Thats unexcusable considering elections are bought nowadays. Gore cost Gore the election.

BTW, since Kucinich won't win the Democratic nominee, I'll vote either the Green Party or Nader.

Just a minor note, Gore lost Florida because the idiots couldn't figure out how to work the ballot and ended up voting for Buchanan.

I actually watched a whole debate on CNN hosted by Larry King with all the democratic hopefuls. The Rev seemed like the best choice to me. Sharpton sounded the most honest. Nader seemed a little too unconservative to win but I think it will be a close vote for democratic leader.

Originally posted by Dr Unne
Nader didn't cost Gore the election. If people thought Gore (or Bush) was better than Nader, they would've voted for one of them instead. If Gore needed people who were better than him to quit to make room for him to win, he didn't deserve to win. If people would vote for candidates they think are good rather than guessing what everyone else will vote and voting for the candidate they think is "good enough and has a chance of winning", maybe our election system would work like it's supposed to.

GURR GURRR Nader cost him 90,000 votes in Florida, and 20,000 in New Hampshire GJURR