i read something interesting, comparing the runs of nader and perot. perot got way, way more of the popular vote. i don't recall exactly, but i think it was nearly 20%, while nader got something like .5%. and when the election was over, a lot of conservatives blamed perot for bush losing his re election bid (despite demographic info suggesting that perot attracted pretty equal numbers of liberal and conservative voters).

also, bush the first was a rambling motherfucker. he could barely string a coherent sentence together. apparently W gets it from daddy.

Nader has the benefit of having not voted for the War in Iraq(TM) or the PATRIOT act--that by itself makes him a better democratic candidtate than Hillary or Obama.

Of course, Nader was never really a spoiler for anyone. Frankly, the concept of a 'spoiler' seems to insinuate that the democrats and republicans deserve to split the vote between them, and that anyone gaining votes from those who feel disillusioned with those parties is somehow stealing away votes that rightfully belonged to one of the two government parties.

Even if we allow that a spoiler can exist in a democracy, Nader still fails to really meet that test -- his vote totals in each state were almost always less than the Democrat's margin of defeat.

Of course though, Nader's campaign is irrelevant.

To me the anger towards Nader (and other minor candidates) is more about the way our particular voting system works.
If we had something like instant-runoff voting or any other of the ranking systems this kind of thing would never even be an issue.

hankrearden: the concept of a 'spoiler' seems to insinuate that the democrats and republicans deserve to split the vote between them

gyst: If we had something like instant-runoff voting or any other of the ranking systems this kind of thing would never even be an issue.

We need more like this.

I was petitioning a few years ago to get a worthy Green Party candidate on the ballot (myself). I encountered a LOT of anger amongst Democrats who believed he spoiled the election. One guy told me that if I was petitioning for Nader he was going to go home, get a gun, and come back to put a bullet in my head.

Evidence clearly shows that Nader did not spoil the Gore's chances of winning. Gore did it himself very nicely. (I'm sure Clinton's sex scandals didn't help any.)

Anyway, I find Nader to be old, pompous, and rather boring. He campaign serves, very effectively, one purpose. To divide and neuter the Green Party. Until he is out of the picture the Green Party won't have a chance to get organized around a new, younger and more energetic candidate. (IMHO)

'He campaign serves, very effectively, one purpose. To divide and neuter the Green Party. Until he is out of the picture the Green Party won't have a chance to get organized around a new, younger and more energetic candidate. (IMHO)'

GO NADER!

How do you neuter someone who has no balls?

Why now? If he had started his run earlier her could have at least influenced the discourse.

I voted for him before but this is an ass-anine move.