Nader
 

So, what with the lifting of the political moratorium, I think it'd be a good time to discuss Nader and his bearing on the election. Does he have a legitimate reason to want to be on the ballot, or is he potentially fucking up what is without a doubt the most important election of the century?

He has publicly said he's running as a spoiler. He has no shot of getting into the presidency and he knows it, so he's just siphoning votes off of whomever.

As I see it, potentially fucking up a potentially critical election is Nader's reason to be on the ballot. There's significant precedent for a third party or independent candidate forcing a primary party to stay true to its supporters. I'll see if I can make a decent explanation of the principle:

It's given that Bush is conservative and Kerry is at least fairly liberal; let's assume, for the moment, that Nader is more liberal than Kerry, just to simplify things. Let's also assume that the following poll numbers are out and accurate: 48 Bush, 42 Kerry, 10 Undecided/Other. Given those numbers, the obvious move for Kerry, at least, is to court the moderate voters. To do that, he shifts his stance more toward center, knowing that his loyal supporters more leftward will still vote for him -- after all, he's more liberal than Bush, right? That's where a third party can come in: they can siphon away those key supporters with a less moderate stance, forcing a larger party to move more toward a traditional position to retain the loyalty of its main membership.

Given the Electoral College and the narrow margins by which some battleground states are decided, a few thousand votes here and there can really matter. In that sense, Nader is actually capable of changing both the campaign and the resulting public policy.

Right? Wrong? I'm too lazy to get into that, at the moment.

I think he should run, we arnt a two party goverment. Or at least we wernt ment to be, where in the constitution does it say that only two partys are alowed to run. The democrats and the republicans are both being uncostitutional by trying to make it so no one but they could run. I think that we should have more partys, and that they shouldnt have to go throw speciol hoops to be on the ballet that the democrats or the republicans have to
Both partys are at fault

We should all vote Nader, endure 4 more years of idiotism, and teach people that they can't ignore the third party.

or all vote nader and have a really good president and have the same effect

He would certainly not be a good president. Just because someone isn't republican or democrat doesn't mean he would be worth shit.

This guy is a moron. His policies are pathetic. He's running AS a spoiler.

The two main parties are not trying to make it stay that way, Psr. The way the system works (by my understanding), is that if, during the presidential election, a party gets at least 5% of the popluar vote, they are given federal funding for the next election. Since they don't have the numbers, they don't get the funding. It's stupid, but that's how it works.

I personally think he would be a very good president (this is opinion as is all of the stuff that has been said here, who knows the futur) i like what he has to say on topics, and i beleve that he would change lots of things for the better

Nader is an egotistical jackass who's only running to feed his own personal fortune and fame. He leans Republican and is not really all that different from Bush or Kerry.

If you want to vote for a REAL third party, vote Libertarian.