Nader v. Barr - Who is the bigger spoiler? Or true candidates?

[GHook93]

Newsmax.com - CNN Poll: Nader Garners 6 Percent of Vote

Everyone knows that the Green Party takes from the Democratic base and the Libertarian Party takes from the Republican base. So the question is who is going to be more of a spoiler. Right now Nader polls at 6% and Barr at 3%, which are not shabby numbers for 3rd party candidated (not numbers that scream they are true candidates, but not shabby).

Can either of them jump up into real contention? Nader has a Latino running with him, who is very active and known in CA, that could eat into the Latino basis of the Democrats. Under the Bush administration aka the Republicans, everything has gone to sh1t: Oil, food, the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, the dollar, the mortgage meltdown, tax and spending increases, rising healthcare costs and an inevitable recission. Like it or not this all came on the Republican ticket. However, fiscal conservatives (such as myself) still don't want to go to the liberal camps in Obama or Nader. Therefore the alternative is to go Libertarian. I have committed my vote to Bob Barr, I wonder how many others will also.

Can either be a true threat? I personally think that neither will receive more than 1% of the vote. I think Nader will get a little more because of name recognition, but not much. Its a shame though. It would be nice to have 4 parties. I think the Libertarians and Greens must start with State and Local elections, then move to Congress and State governors and then go for the big ticket.

CNN Poll: Nader Garners 6 Percent of Vote

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader received 6 percent of the vote in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Wednesday, bringing him closer to his goal of participating in the upcoming presidential debates.

The CNN/ORC poll of registered voters shows Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in a statistical dead heat at 46 percent and 43 percent respectively, while Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr received 3 percent of the vote.

Nader’s camp, who complains he isn’t given the same chance to promote his candidacy’s objectives as the other two major party’s presidential nominees, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., says he needs to poll nationally at about 10 percent to gain entry into the upcoming town hall debates, as well as the Google-sponsored internet debate set for Sept. 18 in New Orleans.

Staffers working on behalf of Nader’s fifth run at the White House are convinced the perennial candidate could poll as high as 20 percent if allowed to take part in the debates.

The Nader-Matt Gonzalez independent ticket plans to finish petitioning in at least 45 of the 50 states prior to the Sept. 18 debate.

Campaign operatives working for the candidate and his running mate, Matt Gonzales — a politician, lawyer, and activist prominent in San Francisco politics — feel anything can happen once a three-way race between Obama, McCain and their candidate is established.

At a news conference and campaign rally to be held Thursday in Hawaii, Nader will outline his party platform, which includes:

• A comprehensive, negotiated military and corporate withdrawal date from Iraq;
• A single-payer, Canadian-style, private delivery, free-choice public health insurance system for all;
• A living wage and repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act;
• A no-nuke, solar-based energy policy supported by renewable, sustainable, energy-efficient sources;
• A carbon tax to deter global warming;
• An end to the corporate welfare and corporate crime; and
• A more direct democracy that emphasizes people over corporations.

[ThoughtCriminal]

No, neither third-party candidate will get a significant percentage of the vote. McCain will win, by a contested margin amid further Deibold-style irregularities.

TC

[HelioPrime]

Hmm... so many people have already said the popular vote doesn't count. It's the electoral and the majority of electoral votes are already decided giving Obama a clear majority victory somewhere between 65-70%. I don't really understand the electoral system really anyways. Just reporting what the ultra liberals and gays say around other forums.

[GHook93]

Hmm... so many people have already said the popular vote doesn't count. It's the electoral and the majority of electoral votes are already decided giving Obama a clear majority victory somewhere between 65-70%. I don't really understand the electoral system really anyways. Just reporting what the ultra liberals and gays say around other forums.

Popular vote dictates which way the states electoral college will go. So popular vote counts!

[grandpa]

Popular vote dictates which way the states electoral college will
go.
So popular vote counts!

Not true. First of all, as the very premise of this thread suggests, our elections are rigged to favor two parties, and two parties that often behave as one. If one votes for a third party, he's supposedly taking a vote that a Democrat or Republican should be entitled to.

Grandpa h.

[GHook93]

Not true. First of all, as the very premise of this thread suggests, our elections are rigged to favor two parties, and two parties that often behave as one. If one votes for a third party, he's supposedly taking a vote that a Democrat or Republican should be entitled to.

Grandpa h.

Rigged is too harsh of a word, skewed is better.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Not true. First of all, as the very premise of this thread suggests, our elections are rigged to favor two parties, and two parties that often behave as one. If one votes for a third party, he's supposedly taking a vote that a Democrat or Republican should be entitled to.

Grandpa h.

"I voted for Kodos."

TC

[ironeagle]

I see no real point in voting anymore, but none the less I will write in a vote for Ron Paul, regardless of wether he is still running then or not.

[ThoughtCriminal]

I see no real point in voting anymore, but none the less I will write in a vote for Ron Paul, regardless of wether he is still running then or not.

Thank you.

TC

[Chancellor]

Newsmax.com - CNN Poll: Nader Garners 6 Percent of Vote

Everyone knows that the Green Party takes from the Democratic base and the Libertarian Party takes from the Republican base. So the question is who is going to be more of a spoiler. Right now Nader polls at 6% and Barr at 3%, which are not shabby numbers for 3rd party candidated (not numbers that scream they are true candidates, but not shabby).

Can either of them jump up into real contention? Nader has a Latino running with him, who is very active and known in CA, that could eat into the Latino basis of the Democrats. Under the Bush administration aka the Republicans, everything has gone to sh1t: Oil, food, the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, the dollar, the mortgage meltdown, tax and spending increases, rising healthcare costs and an inevitable recission. Like it or not this all came on the Republican ticket. However, fiscal conservatives (such as myself) still don't want to go to the liberal camps in Obama or Nader. Therefore the alternative is to go Libertarian. I have committed my vote to Bob Barr, I wonder how many others will also.

Can either be a true threat? I personally think that neither will receive more than 1% of the vote. I think Nader will get a little more because of name recognition, but not much. Its a shame though. It would be nice to have 4 parties. I think the Libertarians and Greens must start with State and Local elections, then move to Congress and State governors and then go for the big ticket.

For them to be spoilers is to assume that somehow the Democrats or Republicans are actually entitled to votes. The people who accuse other party candidates of being spoilers stupidly think that the votes people cast are not the people's votes but votes that belong to either the Democrat Party or the Republican Party. Your remark about how Libertarians and Greens must start with state and local elections shows that you really don't know what the hell you're talking about (as usual). Both of these parties do run candidates in various local and state elections. No, your statement is a veiled way of saying "Federal elections belong only to the Democrats and Republicans - no other parties allowed. Maybe if other parties somehow manage to overcome the Democrat and Republican control over local and state governments, maybe we'll be nice enough to let them participate in federal elections."

[Chancellor]

Not true. First of all, as the very premise of this thread suggests, our elections are rigged to favor two parties, and two parties that often behave as one. If one votes for a third party, he's supposedly taking a vote that a Democrat or Republican should be entitled to.

Grandpa h.

They do often behave as one and are helped by the media. Why is it that Democrats and Republicans seem to have an automatic place on the ballot but other parties have to fight to get on the ballot? Why do the media idiots cover the Democrats and Republicans and use phrases like "the two political parties" but refuse to give significant coverage to the numerous other national parties? Why are other parties denied access to the interparty televised debates? It's because the Democrats, Republicans and their media prostitutes want to maintain the status quo.

[GHook93]

For them to be spoilers is to assume that somehow the Democrats or Republicans are actually entitled to votes.

Calm down my friend that is not what I was saying at all. Like it or not the Green party and Democrats are alike, just as the Republicans and Libertarians are alike. Both the G and the D have a more liberal mindset. As the R and L have more of a conservative mindset. Therefore, some people that might have voted for the D or the R would have voted for the G and the L respectfully.

The people who accuse other party candidates of being spoilers stupidly think that the votes people cast are not the people's votes but votes that belong to either the Democrat Party or the Republican Party.

See above. Or on the converse people who think that everyone who votes either D or R are hardcore members or even like the candidate. Many people are independents who choose between the 2 they like better.

Your remark about how Libertarians and Greens must start with state and local elections shows that you really don't know what the hell you're talking about (as usual).

The only reason I state that is that if they get a good amount of candidates in the Senate, House and State legislator, then they will get more support and aka a better chance at the big tickets. Not saying they shouldn't run for the Presidency, but rather they should concentrate more on smaller elections. Because let's face it winning 1% in the Presidential election by a 3rd party would be a huge step forward. However, 1% is still a far cry from anything meaningful.

Both of these parties do run candidates in various local and state elections.

No sh1t, yet how many are represented in the senate, house, state legislator or are governors? When your a young person you don't ordinarily start as the CEO. You usually start at the bottom and work your way up. Why shouldn't a party do that also.

No, your statement is a veiled way of saying "Federal elections belong only to the Democrats and Republicans - no other parties allowed.

No that is reality! In fact I wish there were 4 parties with representatives spread throughout the House, Senate, Governors and State Legislation. However, it is primarily D and R. That is a FACT!

Maybe if other parties somehow manage to overcome the Democra
t and Republican control over local and state governments, maybe we'll be nice enough to let them participate in federal elections."

That is exactly my point why they should concentrate primarily on the States and Local Governments first.


For the record my friend I am casing my vote for Bob Barr and the Libertarian party.

[grandpa]

Rigged is too harsh of a word, skewed is better.

No, "rigged" is appropriate enough. And it's actually a light way to put it.

Grandpa h.