LATEST POLL FROM ZOGBY SHOW NADER A BIG FACTOR
McCain 45%
Nader 6%
McCain 44%
Obama 39%
Nader 5%
JOHN ZOGBY - The introduction of long-time activist Ralph Nader into the mix is having an effect on the race, as he wins enough support to make a difference, the poll shows. . . In the McCain-Clinton-Nader match-up, McCain leads mainly because of a significant advantage among independents. Among those voters, he wins support from 45%, compared to 28% for
Nader also does particularly well as a third-party candidate among progressives, winning 15% support from the group that would very likely otherwise go to Clinton were he not in the race. At the other end of the ideological scale, he wins 12% among libertarians. He also wins 6% support among both conservatives and liberals.
In the McCain-Obama-Nader match-up, the independent candidate is having the same effect. Nader wins 15% support among political independents nationwide. Ideologically, Nader wins 18% support among progressives, and 12% among libertarians. He does less well among mainline conservatives and liberals compared to the match-up including
An interesting factor in this race: the inroads McCain has made into Obama's base and vice versa. McCain wins 19% support from Democrats, while Obama captures just 67% of voters in his own party. Obama wins 15% support among Republicans, compared to 73% for McCain.
As is the case in the McCain-Clinton-Nader contest, Obama wins among voters under age 30, while McCain leads among all voters age 30 and older. Nader wins 15% support among those under age 30, but has little support among older voters. Among men, McCain leads Obama 48% to 34%, while Obama holds a slim 43% to 41% edge over McCain among women. Nader wins 6% among men and 4% among women.
Nader's presence in the race can potentially turn a lulu of a race into an absolute tizzy. The messages to Democrats are clear number one, Nader may win enough support to get into the general election debates. Number two, what could be at risk is support among several key constituencies that the Democratic Party candidate will need to win in November, notably younger voters, independents, and progressives.
13 Comments:
Ralph Nader should be a factor in this election. His fair and common sense positions, below, are opposite of those held by the three leading Demopublicans. Why vote for those who don't represent your views?
If you want a certain thing, first you have to start with that intention. Here are some basic Nader intentions:
* Open up the Presidential debates - we must encourage discussion of all issues from all points of view.
* Put an end to ballot access obstructionism.
* Adopt single payer national health insurance - health care should not be a business, but a shared concern and responsibility of us all.
* Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget - at least by a little bit! Check out Ben's Cookie Calculator [http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/] - redistributing five of our 40 military spending cookies for other programs would be a step in the right direction, and still leave us outspending all other major military forces combined by four to one. While you're at it, take a look at Ben's BB video [http://www.truemajority.org/bensbbs/] Think of what one cookie fewer BBs would afford us.
* Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East - let's pull in our idiotic and pretentious horns, repair our roads and bridges and make this country a place the world wants to visit.
* Solar energy first, No to nuclear power - buy off the oil folks, and start installing solar furnaces and chimneys, ramp up wind and tidal power and wire all cars for good batteries
* Adopt a carbon pollution tax.
* Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and welfare - and start enforcing those laws we already agreed to.
* Work to end corporate personhood.
* Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law.
* Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax - fair is fair, share the wealth.
* Impeach Bush/Cheney - a must for National reconciliation and unity. Laws must apply to all, or they can apply to none. We know which choice is right and which we want.
If you agree with these ideas, ever 51% over the others, this guy deserves your vote.
Thanks, Tom
Ralph Nader can only be a factor in this election if Democrats once again only manage 50%+/-1 of the electorate. Obviously, the country can't distinguish between the Republicans and Democrats. If the Democrats want to take Nader out of the race, they need to learn to lead.
Remember Ross Perot.
Ralph Nader Ron Paul Dennis Kucinich Mike Gravel.
Cynthia McKinney.
United by truth elicit fear smear blacklist.
Wrenches in the gears lives not lived in vain.
Human League awakened sheep.
President Carter understands
Despite his denials, Nader elected Bush in 2000.
Only a delusional egomaniac would do it again for McCain in 2008, while claiming that he wasn't sabotaging the Democratic Party.
8:40, you are 100% wrong about 2000. Search The Progressive Review for Sam's many excellent articles analyzing that election in great detail. The result this time could be very different, but in 2000 Nader took more votes from Bush than from Gore and most of his votes came from those who would otherwise not have voted at all.
Right, 9:49, and there is no difference between Bush & Gore.
You guys not only drank the Kool-Aid, you 're coming back for seconds & thirds.
What koolaid did you drink, 3:55? There's plenty of difference between Bush and Gore and 9:49 said nothing that would suggest otherwise.
The people who did the most to lose that election for Gore were, in order of importance, Gore himself, Bill Clinton, and the Supreme Court. Nader had nothing to do with it.
Sure, Nader drew more than 2.8 million votes, including more than 97,000 in Florida, but he was not a factor in the outcome an election that was decided by a few hundred votes. Denying his disasterous impact only enables its repetition.
The flaw in your logic is the absurd implication that all of those Nader voters would have voted for Gore if Nader had not been running. This is just plain wrong. Most would not have voted at all, and enough others would have voted for Bush that the net result would have been a clear win for him. When you start from faulty assumptions, you end up with faulty conclusions.
An assertion that a 2000 election without Nader would have yielded "a clear win" for the Republicans is quite an assumption.
Here's what John Zogby says about 2000:
"Nader entered the race recently, charging that there is little difference between the Republican and Democratic parties and their presidential candidates. Using the same argument eight years ago, his presence on the ballot in Florida may well have tipped the presidential election away from Democrat Al Gore and in favor of George W. Bush."
Here's what he says about 2008:
"Independent candidate Ralph Nader wins 5%, taking more support from Democrats."
Nader's impact as a spoiler has been disasterous. Denying it, so he can do it again, is worse.
2000 and 2008 are very different animals. Yes, Nader may very well throw the election to McCain this time. I'm not arguing with that at all.
That was not the case in 2000, no matter how "comforting" you may find the idea. (By comforting, I mean that had Gore campaigned in Tennessee or encouraged general insurrection after the Supreme Court illegally appointed Bush we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Folks like you just can't face the fact that all the blame for Bush being in office rests sqarely on Gore.)
Democrats hate the notion of anyone challenging the two party system, and, hence, the urban myth that Nader cost the Democrats the 2000 election. A myth that they quickly jettison when trying to gin up hostility towards Republicans and Christian fundamentalists, when they then call that Bush stole the 2000 election.
Which is it? Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida, but Bush got about 500,000 Democratic ones, something that you rarely, if ever, hear Democratic partisans admit.
Anyway, another real problem with Nader is that he exposes the extent to which liberals and establishment Democrats sold out the people that they demand continue to vote for Democratic candidates.
Basically, I find the whole argument tiresome. Nader says some of the right things, but it would be better if Matt Gonzalez was at the top of the ticket instead of him. To vote for Nader, you have to believe that participating in this corrupt process has some potential to improve things, instead of legitimizing it, as I think it does.
A national boycott, where everyone goes to the polls and spoils their ballots in the Presidential race by writing in, say, Zippy the Pinhead or Jose Sarria or Fred Korematsu, is, in my view, a better idea.
--Richard
I don't disagree with what Mr. Nader says.
What I find prolematic, is that he only says these things once every four years.
Mr. Nader, to my knowledge doesn't factor into the progressive movement at any other time. He doesn't try to build a grass roots organization, he supports NO progressive candidates, he conducts no town hall meetings, he doesn't do the grunt work necessary to CHANGE anything. In fact, as I see it, he doesn't do much of anything but write articles, for progressive publications, and/or websites,(for which I would assume he is handsomely compensated.)
Then - Boom! Mr. Nader announces, on television, in January or February of an election year, "I'm running for President." Since the Green Party, which he has already exploited, has a ticket - he runs as an Independent. The rest of the election cycle, there is a deafening silence from Mr. Nader.
He and Hillary Clinton are a lot alike.
Both are determined to be a candidate "or else."
The Electorate - be damned.
You want to build a third party Ralph? Work your a** off and build one.
You want to play spoiler Ralph?
Destroy the Democratic Party?
And, Mr. Nader replies: "So?"
Post a Comment
<< Home