Sunday, June 27, 2004
Do they think we're stupid?
I have two fundamental problems with the whole Nader issue.
First is Nader himself. He keeps saying that his candidacy will siphon more votes from Bush than it will from Kerry. Yet every single bit of objective data contradicts this assertion of his. Every poll that I've seen shows him siphoning more support from Kerry than Bush by at least a roughly two to one margin. Likewise all the data I've seen from his 2000 run shows roughly the same two to one margin. I don't believe for an instant that Nader is too stupid to understand that the facts simply aren't there to back him up. Surely he must know that he's promulgating a lie. To what end? And why would anyone knowingly vote for someone who repeats such an obvious and absurd lie? I'm not talking about protest voters here. They could care less because they're not voting *for* him as much as they are voting *against* the others. I'm talking about his core supporters. Why do they blithly ignore a bald-faced lie?
And then there's the issue of openly conservative groups trying to help Nader qualify for the state ballots in Oregon and Arizona. Nader says he's not bothered by this. Yet isn't it patently obvious that these same groups have no intention of actually voting for Nader? Haven't their spokespersons said as much?
The other problem I have is with the Dems. We've heard over and over how Nader cost Gore the 2000 election. But, the fact of the matter is that Nader can only vote for himself once. The real object of their ire is the voters. Yet even this is misplaced anger in my view. Why are the voters to blame for Dem candidates failing to win their voluntary support via the ballot box? Here are some interesting stats on the 2000 vote: 2000 Results. Note the huge percentage of Nader voters who said they'd have not voted at all if Nader wasn't on the ballot.
Personally, I think Kerry is playing the whole Nader thing very smartly. Publically at least he has been very clear about respecting Nader's right to run and has focused on swaying voters rather than attacking Nader. I don't think he could play it any better. With Nader failing to win the Green nomination it's looking like he'll be much less of a factor this year anyway. Plus, many of the post-2000 predictions by Greens simply haven't panned out as they expected: AlterNet: Why Nader is NOT to Blame
Your thoughts?
|
First is Nader himself. He keeps saying that his candidacy will siphon more votes from Bush than it will from Kerry. Yet every single bit of objective data contradicts this assertion of his. Every poll that I've seen shows him siphoning more support from Kerry than Bush by at least a roughly two to one margin. Likewise all the data I've seen from his 2000 run shows roughly the same two to one margin. I don't believe for an instant that Nader is too stupid to understand that the facts simply aren't there to back him up. Surely he must know that he's promulgating a lie. To what end? And why would anyone knowingly vote for someone who repeats such an obvious and absurd lie? I'm not talking about protest voters here. They could care less because they're not voting *for* him as much as they are voting *against* the others. I'm talking about his core supporters. Why do they blithly ignore a bald-faced lie?
And then there's the issue of openly conservative groups trying to help Nader qualify for the state ballots in Oregon and Arizona. Nader says he's not bothered by this. Yet isn't it patently obvious that these same groups have no intention of actually voting for Nader? Haven't their spokespersons said as much?
The other problem I have is with the Dems. We've heard over and over how Nader cost Gore the 2000 election. But, the fact of the matter is that Nader can only vote for himself once. The real object of their ire is the voters. Yet even this is misplaced anger in my view. Why are the voters to blame for Dem candidates failing to win their voluntary support via the ballot box? Here are some interesting stats on the 2000 vote: 2000 Results. Note the huge percentage of Nader voters who said they'd have not voted at all if Nader wasn't on the ballot.
Personally, I think Kerry is playing the whole Nader thing very smartly. Publically at least he has been very clear about respecting Nader's right to run and has focused on swaying voters rather than attacking Nader. I don't think he could play it any better. With Nader failing to win the Green nomination it's looking like he'll be much less of a factor this year anyway. Plus, many of the post-2000 predictions by Greens simply haven't panned out as they expected: AlterNet: Why Nader is NOT to Blame
Your thoughts?
Return to Main
