Our worst fears have been realized. We finally have a chance to boot the Republicans out of the White House, and now Ralf Nader has announced his insane plans to do whatever he can to make sure that a Democrat does not take that position.Nader announced his quixotic and potentially destructive plan, in which he will abuse his name recognition, manipulating legions of mindless, moronic Nader-Simps, and get his jollies telling us all how much the system is broken while he single handedly guarantees eight more years of economic strife and bloody warfare … in a Sunday interview on Meet the Press.Democrats: Pick the republican you hate least and start working for that candidate, because you don’t get to have a Democrat in the White House. Thanks to Ralf.Nader, who clearly intends to ruin everything, claims that Americans are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties. Apparently he has not noticed the throngs of Democrats and Independents, as well as numerous Republicans, swarming the Democratic Primaries and Caucasus. Clearly, he has no clue. But he does have a huge, overblown ego and a very loose grip on reality.In the same interview, Nader denied that he is a spoiler candidate. Since he is a spoiler candidate, this should cause us to question his intelligence, or his grasp of what is going on in the world around us.Barack Obama’s reaction:
“He thought that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush and eight years later I think people realise that Ralph did not know what he was talking about”
Hillary Clinton’s Reaction:
“I remember when he did this before, it didn’t turn out too well, for anyone, especially our country, … I hope it’s kind of a just a passing fancy that people won’t take too seriously.”
Huckabee’s reaction:
“I think it always would probably pull votes away from the Democrats, not the Republicans, so naturally Republicans would welcome his entry into the race and hope that maybe a few more will join in”
Are you getting this? When Nader put Bush in the White House eight years ago, he had about double the number of votes than the difference between Gore and Bush. You will remember that that was the year that Bush was elected by the electoral college despite a popular majority for Gore. Had Nader not been in play, there is no doubt that Bush would not have won.Here’s a web site giving the updated body count in Iraq. These are deaths that must be attributed to Nader, in the very same way that Nader saved lives with his earlier crusade against the auto industry. I hope he is keeping count.Oh, and get your No to Nader Badge Here!
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
When Nader put Bush in the White House four years ago, he had about double the number of votes than the difference between Gore and Bush. You will remember that that was the year that Bush was elected by the electoral college despite a popular majority for Gore.A little correction there, Greg. It was 8 years ago, and Bush was put into office by the Supreme Court’s illogical rulings on the Florida vote count.Other than that, I agree with you completely on the egomaniac Nader.
I know it was eight years ago. (I even remember thinking “eight” but my fingers typed “four”… ) And, I corrected the text. But the Science Blogs site (that I hook to to do such things) is down…. alas.Hey, I spent the afternoon at the Wine Experience thing in the twin Cities. I’m lucky to be sitting upright.(Had some good wine, though…)
After the 2000 debacle, though, do you expect anyone to vote for him? I would think that voters, if not Nader himself, have learnt their lesson.
Maria,That’s what my wife said. But the Nader-Simps I’ve spoken to did not learn their lesson. If anything, they are more entrenched.
Gee, Greg, get hysterical much?This is an opportunity for derision, not panic (nor repeating simplistic charges that “Nader cost us the 2000 election” which serve more to obscure Democratic failures than to shed analytical light).It’s unlikely that even the Greens will accept Nader as their nominee this time around – maybe some of them will start to realize just how much harm he did to their party in ’00 & ’04.The Nader threat has always been overblown, but this year it’s not likely he’ll make it onto many state ballots. In the meantime, the threat from the Supreme Court has only worsened, and the prospects for election-rigging (electronic & otherwise) are more worthy of alarm.
Pierce:So, you would prefer that I and other ignore this? Or that we simply don’t take it seriously?I will not rest until I am confident that all eleven of my readers, including you, have taken the “I’m Not a Nader Simp” Pledge!
Greg,Well, I really really hope your sample isn’t representative. Especially since I’m not a citizen of this country, just a lowly PhD student, and would strongly prefer the Dems to win. Whoever is nominated.Needless to say, I’m Not a Nader Simp.
Well, we haven’t heard much from the Greens on this yet, have we? I would hope that a majority of them have given up their quixotic battle and moved into the Democratic party, trying to make it liberal as it should be.Nader, perhaps finally, will be as viable or as much of a spoiler as Harold Stassen. I don’t see him getting much support, nor do I see him pulling many voters from Obama. I am not worried about him being much more than fodder for Letterman and Leno in this race.Of course, it may make it incumbent on us Democrats to make sure we do GOTV better than we did in 2000.
Also not a Nader simp, to say the least. Very pissed at that man right now. How can he possibly not know how happy he is making the Republicans?(BTW I tagged your blog as E for excellent.) /offtopic
As someone wrote elsewhere, what has Nader been doing? From what I can gather, he is a pretty useless appendage, resting lethargically until a presidential election overturns his stone and he crawls into the daylight to feed his ego. Seriously, since his consumer-advocacy of…what, the 70s, 80s?…what has he done that would give any indication to support (no, forget that, let’s start with a simple “like”) this idiot?
Let’s all remember the proper scientific and skeptical approach to any question: Just because a claim _seems_ obvious doesn’t mean it’s true – The real world often contains subtleties and complications that are overlooked in the rush to accept the supposedly obvious.So, would Nader really rob votes from the Democratic nominee? NOT NECESSARILY – I read some work from a researcher who pointed out a strong competing effect: A moderate liberal risks being painted as or perceived as a far-left liberal, causing undecided centrist voters to vote against them. But if somebody who really _is_ a far-left liberal enters the race, the moderate liberal now suddenly looks far more centrist THANKS TO THE NEW COMPARISON.This comparison effect can be quite strong. So for every far-left vote that Nader steals from the Democratic nominee, the comparison effect may win _several_ undecided centrist votes for Obama or Clinton, who will appear more centrist thanks to Nader. That net gain could put a Democrat in the White House. (The effect cuts both ways – an ultra-right-wing candidate can make a moderate conservative look more moderate and thus win him or her centrist votes.)So, before shooting from hip, everybody should find some real evidence, beyond just assuming it’s obvious. There’s real research showing that bringing Nader into the race and emphasizing his most leftist points might actually HELP.
Emory… fine, but you need one of these!
Nader is a true revolutionary. A revolutionary wants the government to be as bad as possible in hope that the revolution will prosper. Nader jumped in eight years ago with the hidden agenda of making George Bush president. If Nader had not been on the ballot in Florida, and 538 Nader wackos had voted for Al Gore, Al Gore would be our president. Nader has the same objective this time. Anyway, that’s my conspiracy theory and I’m sticking to it!
Well, one could make a case for ignoring Nader as thoroughly as possible – but all I ask is that you keep a better perspective than, “Our worst fears have been realized.”Look around: there are many worse things to fear…
Pierce,OK, but you really need one of these!Take one and pass them on!!!!
To be fair, did he have much of an impact in 2004? And that was with Kerry- not the most exciting candidate.I don’t see how he could touch Obama.
I do think it’s highly likely that Nader’s presence on the 2000 ballot made it possible for Bush to steal that election. His impact on the 2004 was vanishingly small, partly because he turned his back on the Green Party that had given him its nomination in 2000.Of course, now in 2008 he might hurt the Democrats by making John McCain look younger.
Greg,Way to be an ass. “legions of mindless, moronic Nader-Simps”? Are you competing for these voters? Or trying to alienate them? How about giving them a reason to vote for the candidate *you* like?I simply do not comprehend this “its Nader’s fault that we got Bush” argument. How about this: If Bush hadn’t run, we wouldn’t have had Bush. If people hadn’t voted for Bush, we wouldn’t have Bush. If the democrats had a candidate that people like better, we wouldn’t have Bush. Your argument basically boils down to: we lost because there was competition, therefore we should try harder to not have any competition.People who vote for Nader might just agree with what he very plainly says: both parties stink. Why, *why* do you insist that Nader and his supporters are yours, rather than your competition?And if you want my opinion, I think Obama had the best reaction. Hillary just insulted and dismissed Nader fans — is this how one goes about courting potential supporters? Obama at least made a coherent attempt to say that Nader was wrong to say that Gore and Bush were equally bad.I think all that is needed to sway many Nader fans is to say just that. Nader basically always says that the lesser of two evils is still evil, so don’t vote for either. Obama/Hillary need only stress that, even if you think both parties are evil, there really clearly is a spectrum of evil, and the risk of falling way off the deep end is real and serious, and that can out-weigh the bad taste of not voting your conscience. It is obvious that Nader underestimated how bad bad could be, and so did his fans. I think most people, including republicans, are surprised at how bad Bush has been. All the dems need to do is keep stressing that.That, and avoid calling Nader’s fans mindless and moronic.
Since we elect by electoral college and not popular vote it is unclear that Nader caused Gore to lose the 2000 election. (I am not a Nader supporter.) To Nader the ends justify s the means. In crash testing the original VW Bug he took out the spare tire. (The spare tire was located under the hood and was designed to help protect the passengers in a front end collision.)Alas there isn’t a perfect voting system and the number of candidates can have a dramatic effect on the outcome.
In 2000 Nader got 2.74% of the vote. In 2004 he got 0.38%. In 15 states he was outpolled by the Libertarian candidate. He was not a factor in any state in 2004. The closest he came was in Iowa and New Mexico. In Iowa Bush beat Kerry by 10,059 votes. Nader got 5,973 votes but all 3rd party candidates got 11,959. In New Mexico Bush beat Kerry by 5,988 votes. Nader got 4,053 and all 3rd parties combined got 8,432. He will be even less of a factor in 2008 than he was in 2004.
I predict that this time around, Nader will split the traditional Gus Hall voting bloc, thus paving the way for Lyndon Larouche to move into third place ahead of Pat Buchanan and whoever the Libertarians run.2008 promises to be a nail-biting election for fringe crackpots!
Are you sure a few more chads wouldn’t have been found to be hanging then?Remember: Gore won anyway. The Supreme Court just didn’t like that and pulled a coup.
By 5,988 counted votes.
well that’s all right then. after all, anybody that dumb is surely not a potential democratic voter anyway… or if they are, they definitely won’t be discouraged by a democrat openly insulting their judgment.
why on earth would you want to hope for that? it would make about as much sense to hope for a bunch of republicans to join the democratic party in an effort to move it further to the right — and that, at least, would stand a real chance of getting the dems to win elections!
Several posts in this thread have alluded to “legions of Nader fans.” That’s a joke, right? Nobody cares about Ralph Nader. As an “alternative” in the 2004 contest, when the two main candidates ranged from “unexciting and undefendable” to “widely despised and perhaps truly evil,” even THEN nobody voted for Nader.Simply caring about Nader, at all, is a real marker of generational myopia. It’s totally a Boomer thing. In my entire lifetime, Ralph Nader has been nothing more than the squinty old kook who handed Bush the keys. Color me unimpressed by his Woodstock-era consumer activism; if he didn’t invent the car seatbelt (or whatever), someone else would have.
The sad thing about all this is that Ralph’s right. Check out the Political Compass site…see any candidates down in the lower-left where I live? Not without Kucinich you don’t.People who claim Nader’s in it for his ego know nothing about Nader. He’s in it so as not to be a hypocrite. When I voted for Kerry, I was being a hypocrite, and when I hold my nose and vote for Obinton I’ll be a hypocrite too. We all need to grin and pretend the non-Constitutional corporate-status-quo Republicrat “choice” is the best we can do? Or else we’re “mindless, moronic simps”?Bite me, Laden.
Sven,Does it matter that I know his sister?I would bite you, but I suspect you’d bite back.G
ScienceBlogs commenters, red in tooth and claw….grrrrrrrrrr
Pleeeeeeeaaaaaaassssssseeee!!!!! Pretty please, not Ralph Nader — again! I used to like him, but. . . .And — This is for Greg: Do I understand you correcty when you say you know Laura Nader? She’s done some pretty cool stuff.Anne G
I do not know Larua particularly well. We’ve met a few times and had a number of conversations, one especially important to her and interesting to me. We anthropologists tend to know each other after a few decades in the business.