» Home » Politics
Ralph Nader's Bid For The Presidency Spells Trouble For The Democrats.
According to the BBC, Ralph Nader will once again run for the US presidency in the November elections. Although Nader has absolutely no chance of winning, his bid is likely to take away votes from the Democratic candidate.
 mackenzie  24 Feb 2008 17:26
                           (What's this?)  Add to Firefox  RSS
Most political analysts agree that Ralph Nader's presidential run in 2000 made the election closer than it otherwise would have been and the deadlocked result helped propel George Bush and the Republicans to power. Nader garnered 2 percent of the vote in 2000 and is likely to achieve a similar result in this year's election. A minority of left-wing Democrats will again leave their party in a lurch, once they have had their fill of Obama's rhetoric which, in part, is aimed at pandering to moderate Republicans and independent voters.

With Republicans choosing John McCain, a moderate, liberal-conservative on social issues and one who appears to partially oppose fiscal conservatism, the incumbent party will be able to sway some independent, male voters away from the Democrats. Based on current polling data, I predict that this will result in a very tight race this autumn. While the Democrats under either Obama or Clinton still have a slight edge, Nader will chip away at their support and may well hand the election over to the Republicans in the process.
 
 mackenzie  24 Feb 2008 17:36
 Add a Comment
 
Whilst I see where the OP is coming from, I suspect that the American public support Nadar much less than in 2000 and the democrats are more wary. I think he will be ineffectual this time.
 
 Quincel  15 Jun 2008 16:12
 Add a Comment
 
 
In my opinion the Dems and Reps feel little need to be responsible to their constituency because most of their voters are too afraid to vote for anyone else. The only way to bring the American political system back under the control of the American voter is to get away from the two party system. I think that goal is far more important than any one election.
 
 finsch  15 Jun 2008 16:01
 Add a Comment
 
 
Enough people remember Nader's decisive impact in 2000 and in 2004 he got way fewer votes because after bush people realize that if you vote for a 3rd party candidate, you better be sure they have a chance of winning.
 
 donphilipe  10 Mar 2008 22:14
 Add a Comment
 
 
Ralph Nader can't take away votes that the Democrats don't have in the first place. An election should not be won because voters are only allowed to select from two parties, and one of those parties is a worse option than the other. An election should be won by the best candidate.
 
 Chell  03 Mar 2008 20:19
 Add a Comment
 
 
Ralph Nader merely offers a different political ideology, this should never be looked down upon. Giving people more choices expands the pool of knowledge and if the democrats had such a superior political philosophy someone like Ralph Nader wouldn't effect their votes. If Nader gets democratic votes then those people are not truly democrats and are entitled to vote for whomever they believe to be the best candidate.
 
 openurmind  03 Mar 2008 20:02
 1 Comment
 
 Whilst that is all true, it does not preclude the possibility of Nadar's bid harming democrat hopes, whether or not the voters who defect are real democrats or not.
by  Quincel
 15 Jun 2008 15:12
Comment
  
Comment
  
 
The Democrats learned their lesson from 2000. The extraordinary damage to America and the world that repugnicans in office can do has been made very clear. The impulse to support a fringe figure like Nader will not be indulged in again when the stakes are so high. All democrats (except the Clintons) realise that the overriding imperative must be to get the republicans out.

Obama is largely an unknown quantity. He does not alienate even the more extreme left-wingers in the Democratic party in the same way that Hillary does. Obama opposed the war and Hillary supported it. She has also supported all of Bush's demagogic initiatives and the infringements he has made on traditional liberties. Therefore she alienates hardcore liberals much more than Obama does. If Hillary was the candidate, Nader might potentially be much more of a problem. But since she won't be, neither will he.
 
 Hidell  24 Feb 2008 21:15
 Add a Comment
 
Sign In / Sign Up
 For and Against Recent Activity
Related Debates
Tax In The U.k. Is Too Much!
The Iranian Oil Bourse Will Be A Stepping Stone For The Fall Of Dollar Hegemony.
Hilary Should Be Running For President
China Is Threat To World Peace
The Draft Should Be Started Again. Only This Time Take Girls As Well As Boys.
Joe Scarborough Does Know Something
The American People Don't Know Enough About The Government.
As Long As There Are Humans There Will Be Conflict And War
The U.S. Is A Socialist Country Now
McCain Was Never Tortured
New Debates
Dogs Are Great Lovable Pets. Energetic,lively But Cats Are For The Quit Types Of People Sly,mysterious...
By Firing Rockets Into Israel, The Palestinians, However Misguided, Are Just Living Up To The Same Human...
Many People Would Actually Fight For Their Country If They Had The Chance
We Can't Actually Feel Pain
Weapons Of Mass Destruction Should Be Outlawed
One Of The Best Things You Can Do For Yourself And Loved Ones Is To Set Goals For The Coming Year. Studies...
Apocalypse, 2012, IMMINENT
Life Isn't About What Happens To You It's How "you Choose To React To What Happens.
Life's Worst Experiences Can Teach You The Most About Life.
World Government Is Inevitable.