Nader taken off Ohio ballot

[kellychaos]

Every once in a great while, a third-party with a a new and influentual ideology does emerge to shake the system up a bit. In that case, what usually happens is that one of the major parties usually absorbs that ideology into their platform. Hell, the democrats and republicans nearly had a diametric reversal of their platforms during the late 1800's to early 1900's because of some grass roots third parties, so you can't say that third parties don't matter to some degree.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by Chojin

I can see the point behind voting 3rd party in most elections, but I think the risk is far too great if the president is re-elected in this one, so I have to side with whomever has the greatest chance of ousting him.

What has Kerry said that makes anyone believe his administration would be any different than Bush's in effect? Yes, he's said he'd have done the same stuff BETTER, but isn't that a bit of a stretch for the average Democrat? If you guys had your choice, is that what you'd be voting for? A smarter, more nuanced Bush that's not so religious?

Kerry's campaign is so devoid of any sort of substance it's shocking. He is decidedly not George W Bush, so that seems to satisfy the base, and he's trying his best to be George W Bush to capture the swing voters and the undecideds. My guess is that those I used to think of as principled, ideological progressives are just buying the label here and hoping he'll suddenly turn into a Democrat after he unseats Dubya... But don't you guys at least need some sort of passing effort to be made by him toward running as a liberal candidate?

I understand the point of view you guys have on this, and I guess that if I thought Kerry had a snowball's chance in Hell at actually winning I'd have less of a problem with the mass adoption of so flawed a tactic. Has anyone stopped to consider that Ralph Nader, a principled liberal that I disagree with but respect, would do better against Bush than Kerry might simply because more traditional Democrats would believe in him than they do Kerry?

Yes, I understand that by the argument you guys have made over and over that it's just too late to switch horses... I just hope that this sort of election doesn't become the norm. I see hate and fear winning out over principle, and that scares me. Hopefully, a Kerry loss will cause many Democrats to reconsider their decisions and actions over the last two or three years and re-find their path.

I believe that we'll one day look back on this time in history and say that Democrats trying to vote strategically, instead of voting with their hearts, handed over the entire government to the Republicans at just the point they'd become most dangerous... for "X" number of years.

[Anonymous]

I'd have to disagree - A kerry loss would just tell politicans that we as a nation are in love with warmongering hillbillies.

Kerry does represent (at least, at face value) what I'd be looking for in a president, though - He doesn't think we should have gone into Iraq to begin with, but isn't just going to yank our army out without restoring some kind of order to the place. But also, he claims that he won't just stick around in Iraq to plunder it, too. He thinks that other places such as North Korea are much bigger threats and that we should actually try talking to these people rather than ignoring them. He plans to roll back tax cuts for ridiculously wealthy people who couldn't possibly need them anyway and so on and so on. What about his policies isn't democratic, given the circumstances in which he'd be taking office?

I'm always hearing people say Kerry doesn't have a shot in hell, but I can't imagine many of the people that voted Gore in 2000 would switch to Bush and Gore had a majority going for him. Not to mention that plenty more people are going to vote against Bush now, given that there's a definitive reason to do so. For me to look at the situation without seeing how people react, Kerry winning would make a lot more sense than Bush. Then again, Americans are absolutely retarded.

[davinxtk]

Originally Posted by Preechr

... If you guys had your choice, is that what you'd be voting for? A smarter, more nuanced Bush that's not so religious? ... He is decidedly not George W Bush, so that seems to satisfy the base, and he's trying his best to be George W Bush to capture the swing voters and the undecideds. My guess is that those I used to think of as principled, ideological progressives are just buying the label here and hoping he'll suddenly turn into a Democrat after he unseats Dubya... But don't you guys at least need some sort of passing effort to be made by him toward running as a liberal candidate? ... Has anyone stopped to consider that Ralph Nader, a principled liberal that I disagree with but respect, would do better against Bush than Kerry might simply because more traditional Democrats would believe in him than they do Kerry? ... Yes, I understand that by the argument you guys have made over and over that it's just too late to switch horses ... I just hope that this sort of election doesn't become the norm. I see hate and fear winning out over principle, and that scares me.

I'm a nutcase left-of-the-left-wing liberal, but a smarter, less religious Bush is still way better than Bush. I really am part of the "Anybody but Bush." camp at this point. I'm from Massachusetts, and I'll admit that I do have a tiny (read: miniscule) bit of legacy loyalty to Kerry, but for the most part I honestly expect him to take more of a nap for four years than be a liberal president, or a Bush clone. This might pave the way for the next neocon with a face and a voice, and possibly able to pronounce "nuclear" properly, but I think (hope) another administration is going to uncover shit about Bush & Co that will lay a lot of shame on his camp.

As far as Ralph Nader having a lot of traditional Democrat support, I'd agree. I'd also hazard that Dennis Kucinich would have been much better as the Democratic frontman this term, but everyone was thinking of swing states and undecided voters instead of rounding up more spirit in those Democrats who, as Bobo said, stay home on election day. I'm definitely a half-assed Kerry supporter. I support him because he has a chance, and that's pretty much the end of it.

I certainly hope this kind of election doesn't become the norm, as well. Like I said, I'd much rather see several viable candidates with varying opinions on varying issues, and millions more people voting.