Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Nader snowball's chance in hell of actually winning

  1. Sep 8, 2004 #1

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What is this guy's problem?

    He's widely believed to be the reason Bush even had a chance against Gore, since he steals far more of the democratic vote than the republican vote. I assume that Nader himself would have preferred to see Gore win. I assume Nader realizes that he has a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning.

    So what is his problem? Why is he running again? Does he enjoy slanting elections against the candidate he'd presumably prefer to see win?

    - Warren
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 8, 2004 #2

    Gza

    User Avatar

    I think he is counting on the press he receives to advertise the green party. Either that or he's a closet Republican!
     
  4. Sep 8, 2004 #3
    :rofl so many excuses! Gore lost because Gore wasn't good enough. Nader isn't too blame. He, Bush, and Gore all went in knowing the rules. Just because Nader is a better alternative than Gore for some doesn't mean they would have voted Gore.
    Had the democrats done something besides whine for the last 4 years ,they would be handing Bush his ass, EASILY, right now. Instead, you guys just sit around making excuses for the last time. You have to identify the REAL problem before you can fix it.
     
  5. Sep 8, 2004 #4

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The real problem is that we do not have run-off elections. IMO, elections with 3+ candidates are just too messy.

    - Warren
     
  6. Sep 8, 2004 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Aw, c'mon, that's an easy one. I'll give you a hint: it starts with an "e" and ends with a "go".
    I tend to agree, but I think this is a relatively new phenomena. Not a whole lot of 3rd party candidates get enough votes to matter, but then we had Perot and Nader.
     
  7. Sep 8, 2004 #6

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Channel surfing a few weeks back I caught a TV show (I believe it was Bill Maher's new one) with Bill and Michale Moore on their knees in front of Ralph begging for him not to run....they were dead serious.
     
  8. Sep 8, 2004 #7

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm considering trying to gather support to demonstrate in front of voting precincts in November, just reminding people that essentially a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

    - Warren
     
  9. Sep 8, 2004 #8

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Nader is apparently not on the ballot in a number of states.. I'm not sure what that means. How can a candidate still be in the running at all if only some Americans can vote for him?

    - Warren
     
  10. Sep 8, 2004 #9
    third party rules are slanted to keep them out of the national level Each state gets to handle their voting regulations, and many do anything they can to keep third parties off the ballot. It's stupid.
     
  11. Sep 9, 2004 #10

    Attached Files:

  12. Sep 9, 2004 #11
    chroot, Nader doesn't appear to be much of a bigger fan of Al Gore than George Bush. In fact, he stated once that we would have invaded Iraq no matter which one was President.
     
  13. Sep 9, 2004 #12
    It seems that he's come down with dubya's black-and-white syndrome.
     
  14. Sep 9, 2004 #13
    Huh? Can you elaborate?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Nader snowball's chance in hell of actually winning
  1. Bush Wins (Replies: 47)

  2. If Kerry wins (Replies: 10)

  3. Hamas wins! (Replies: 79)

  4. Obama wins (Replies: 73)

Loading...