February 25, 2008
Does Nader '08 Mean Bloomberg '08, Too?
Doug Schoen, the pollster who has worked with Bill Clinton on his 1996 reelection and Mayor Bloomberg, is stirring the Bloomberg for President pot again. He tells the Sun that Ralph Nader's decision to enter the 2008 presidential race could help Bloomberg.
Schoen explained, "The Democratic candidate, whoever it may be, will have to tack to the left to protect their left flank, and that leaves more room on the center-left." And what with John McCain, presumptive Republican nominee, needing to meet conservatives' desires, there's "a huge void in the middle": "There's a scenario where you have five candidates. You could have a hypothetical Paul on the right and Nader on the left and Bloomberg in the center and a Democrat and a Republican."
It's unclear what Bloomberg thinks of Nader jumping into the race, but he has been grumpy lately because of his sinking presidential possibilities. Hillary Clinton called Nader's bid a "passing fancy" while Barack Obama said, "[Nader] thought that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush, and eight years later I think people realize that Ralph did not know what he was talking about."
As for Nader, he says it's "political bigotry" to call him a spoiler.
|
Go ahead. If Hillary wins bloomberg will split the NY hillary vote and McCain will take the second biggest state in the country.
Fine with me!
Maybe Hillary should pull a Lieberman and run as an independent if she doesn't get the nomination.
Oh, Nader, why won't you leave us alone? What did we ever do to you? Must the specter of your wayward ego haunt us so?
If Hillary wins Bloomberg will split the NY hillary vote and McCain will take Texas? Is that what you mean Matty? Because Texas is the second biggest state.
This is silly anyway. Nader will get virtually zero support in any state that's really up for grabs. People remember how he spilt the vote for W and they won't make that mistake again.
JenChungsBra,
The same "mistake" again? You mean the mistake of voting for somebody you might agree with instead of compromising your beliefs by falling along party lines?
Despite what the Democratic Party would like you to believe, there are many serious key differences between Nader and both their potential candidates...
"bama, what is this a facist country that Americans cannot choose from a wider pool of candidates? Especially a pool that consists of two Senators leading each party in the primaries, both of whom have abandoned their posts to pursue higher interests while collecting salaries for the current jobs that remain unattended. In fact, aside from some fancy rhetoric borrowed from the pages of a pastor's Sunday morning lecture, I still wonder what it is you do.
Whatever infinitesimal number of votes Nader gets are not going to make a difference in this year's election.
BohoPrep: You don't have to preach to me. Even though I was vehemently opposed to Bush, I voted for Nader in 2000. I didn't like either candidate and I figured it didn't matter much anyway since I live in NY and the state was guaranteed to go for Gore anyway. But many people in swing states went for Nader and later regretted it as they turned out to be possibly the margin of victory that put W in the White House. Most of those people are unlikely to do that again, IMHO.
I agree with BohoPrep. Dems are presumptuous for thinking that Nader's out to ruin their chances or a GOP agent and that a vote for Nader should have been a vote for the Dem candidate. In 2000, exit polls suggested that Nader's voters were 2:1 Dems to Republicans, with the remaining voters people that would have stayed home. Each vote has to be earned. People who voted for Nader in 2000 were obviously people who did not like where the Dems were headed. In 2004, I think many people still basically agreed with what Nader was saying, but were simply afraid that they would cause Kerry to lose the election, which he obviously did anyway.
Do people have a problem with Nader's message or Nader candidacy? If it's a problem with his candidacy, you should simply not vote for him, but bring his message and your concerns to your preferred candidate.
BTW, if you want to see who else supported Nader, read this old story from the San Francisco Chronicle about GOP donations to his campaign:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/09/MNGQQ7J31K1.DTL
They know what happened in 2000 and would love to see it replicated again and again.
With all the insincere voting going on, does it really matter? Honestly most people who vote for Nader probably wouldn't vote at all if he didn't run. I voted for Nader just because I knew either way we'd be screwed.
Besides, our choices aren't all that bright to begin with.
If Nader would run with Al Gore he would totally win and then he can smoke all the pot he wants in the White House while Al Gore forces ugly fluorescent bulbs down our throats.
Hey! I was about to get married to the love of my life, and Ralph Nader stood up at the "or forever hold your peace" part and insisted I consider him before I committed.
JensChungBra, what about Democratic candidates who take money from corporations who also give money to GOP candidates?
Mike Gravel for president!!!
The reality is that NOTHING gets done if you don't win. Nothing. How much have the Democrats been able to accomplish with George W. in the White House?
Voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning and taking votes away from Al Gore, or John Kerry in a tight race with George W. Bush was moronic. Only political immature children would agree to that.
By the way, in 2000 Nader kept repeating that there would be absolutely no difference between an Al Gore presidency and a George W. Bush presidency. To this day he refuses to retract that statement. Why would anyone vote for someone who would make such a moronic statement then, and who still refuses to say that he no longer believes it?