Kerry up by 6-8 points in CBS poll

If Kerry ever gives the public a couple of solid and emotional reasons to vote for him he will be riding high straight on to November. Right now he is doing so well based almost solely on Bush shooting himself in the right foot, left foot, both thighs, the ass, and currently taking aim at whats left.

 

Agreed.

Of course, I'm wondering whether this isn't a deliberate strategy on Kerry's part. After all, we're still five months out from the election. No one's even been officially nominated yet. And there's no need for Kerry to make like Landon Donovan when Bush is busy filling up his net with own goals. Best for Kerry to just simply go here, there and everywhere and talk about stuff like health care and education. Maybe it doesn't play well at the cocktail parties Tina Brown goes to, but that's not where this election will be won.

As Howard Dean and William Weld before him can tell you, Kerry knows how to close the deal. It's a marathon, and Kerry's going to drop the hammer at the 25-mile mark.

 

I do look forward to it.

 

If 5% of the population is really contemplating voting for Nader, then there is no hope for the Union. A vote for Nader is the same as voting for Bush, and there are rarely two people so diametrically opposed. If you are thinking about throwing your vote away by voting for Nader, then ask yourself if you like Cheney and Ken Lay dictating energy policy, if you like the foriegn policy of Wolfowitz and Rummy, if you like Ashcroft sorting through you civil liberties, if you think that any semblance of protecting the environment may be valuable. If not, then you CANNOT vote for for Nader in this election. It is a luxury that we the people simply can't afford.

 

Except one of those victories came in the liberal wacko state of Massachusetts and the other came in a liberal wacko primary against a liberal wacko candidate.

 

I disagree with your opinion of the Bush administration, but our election is decided by electoral, rather than popular, vote. Thus, if someone living in Texas, Alaska, Nevada, Alabama, etc. feels they are better represented by Nader than by Kerry why shouldn't they vote for Nader?

 

If they feel Nader is a better candidate on those issues than Kerry then why should they sell their souls to vote for the watered-down candidate? It's rather arrogant to be telling them they are the ones at fault when it would be the unprincipled souls who "settle" for Kerry that are not voting their conscious.

 

So I'm sure you were thrilled with all the folks who voted for Perot, right? It comes down to idealism vs. practicality. In an ideal world, we would vote for whatever candidate fits our individual views. This world is not even close to ideal. 3rd party candidates don't stand a chance of even competing, to say nothing of winning, an election. Thus, when you look at the field, your realistic options are Bush and Kerry. It's a close race. A vote for Nader is essentially a vote for Bush (see Florida). You have to vote your conscience, but you have to temper that conscience with reality.

 

A vote for Nader in Florida may be a vote for Bush, but you can't say that about a vote for Nader in Texas. The polls that show 5% of people nationwide supporting Nader are misleading because they don't tell us what states those people live in. If the vast majority of them live in states that are slam-dunk for one side or the other (and my guess is that 95+% of people who plan to vote for Nader live in either Texas, Colorado, New York, California, Massachussetts, or Vermont; places where they will not swing the election), then Nader doesn't represent a threat to Kerry.

The states that contain a lot of Nader voters are generally either ultra-leftist (not solidly Democratic, but ultra-leftist; California, Vermont, Massachussetts); solidly GOP but containing ultra-leftist havens (Texas, Colorado); or very populous (New York, California, Massachussetts, Texas) and thus unlikely to have an extremely close decision due to the sheer number of people voting (yes, Florida in 2000 was decided by a few hundred votes, but that isn't going to happen very often in a populous state).

 

I think it is telling that it is dfb and Ian saying "go ahead, vote your conscience." I think it is obvious to them that this may be Bush's hope; that the Nader factor propels Bush through again.

If a person would support Nader, then they would almost assuredly think Bush is a way right wing, anti-green, big business candidate. Nader has no chance. To vote for Nader wouldn't be principled, it would simply be helping to elect the rabidly anti-environment, big business loving, borrow and spend Republican from hell. I am not saying they are " at fault", I am saying that in an election this close it may be wise to vote for a guy who isn't the EXACT OPPOSITE of your #1 choice, because that guy can win.

Is there any one who thinks Nader can win? Do you want 4 more years of this nightmare? So if you are to the left of Father Dobson you can't vote for Nader.

 

My name is John Kerry, and I approve of this message

 

Nader is polling five percent right now.

I'd be willing to bet serious money (for me right now, $20 is serious money) that Nader won't even poll one percent nationwide on election day.

 

Your rant needed some help.

 

I guy at my office building has a bumper sticker that used to say "Unrepentent Nader Voter". He obviously altered it to: "Repentent Nader Voter." That's the spirit.

 

Neither 5 nor 10% works. Ralph nader is nothing but an egotistical ass at this point. He is pulling a few key votes away from causes he ostensibly supports so that he can continue to be a media topic. Please give some thought to this country's circumstances before voting for a candidate who at most can get 3% of the vote. Look at what happened on 2000. It is important that it doesn't happen again.

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to speedcake again

 

you sound like trapattoni calling for some cattenacio

 

Again, you've given reasons why people who oppose Bush who live in Florida or Pennsylvania shouldn't vote for Nader (and if I was on the left I would agree with you to that point). But you haven't given any reasons why people who oppose Bush who live in Texas or Wyoming shouldn't vote for Nader if they prefer him to Kerry.

 

Because he has no chance of success. It may be less critical in Wyoming, but still thoughtless. Really, why vote if you are going to vote for Nader. If Ralph were anything but an egotist he would run for a position where he might have a chance. School board, state rep, even congress but no, it is important to Nader that he is in the news, regardless of impact. He is purely a vanity candidate at this point, and I think it is very important for the Union that we show support for a reasonable candidate who can win, and who can lead us out of the quagmire that we are in internationally. GWB has shown he cannot run the country effectively.

 

I don't know about the rest of the country but there are folks here in VT that wouldn't vote at all if Nadar (or a candidate with similar views) wasn't running. I call them the "Bread & Puppet Crowd". They are the hard left that don't like capitalism and don't support Democratic candidates because Democrats are pro-capitalism. In VT politics, they are more likely to support the Progressive Party which pulls 10%-20% in statewide elections. So, while it would be nice if those folks turned out for Kerry, the reality is that they wouldn't. In those instances, a Nadar vote isn't a vote for Bush.



Murf

 

God you're a pompous windbag. I might just have to switch my vote from Kerry to Nader out of spite for your endless moronic ramblings.

Chew on this for a second: you're making Axis Alex and Ian sound like wise and reasonable defenders of the democratic spirit.

 

You know, I don't mind people voting for Nader as long as it's not in a contested state. Now, I realize the consequences - if Nader gets the needed percentage of votes for federal funding, he will be an even bigger force in the following elections, and he will chip away even more votes from the Dems. But a viable 3rd party is a good thing. Even if Nader is a bad candidate, this country needs to get used to having more than just 2 true candidates.
A 2-party system is inherently unhealthy for a democracy. You end up voting for the lesser of two evils, instead of the best candidate, and you force issues, i.e. abortion, fiscall conservatism/liberalism to go left or right.