Where's the Nader Coverage?

[Patrick]

When I saw polls before, usually on Fox, Nader was polling 4 - 5% of the popular vote. Where's the Nader coverage - of the guy whose votes could decide the election? As I remember from 2000, there was tons of coverage then. Nader was in fact the real deciding factor in Gore's loss, not a few hundred greedy geezers in florida who forgot what they were doing in the voting booth, or space aliens that used ray guns to keep black voters from the polls and were never caught.

The LME used to love Ralph because of his liberal views. But they learned their lesson from 2000 - keep their eye on the ball of seeing that Lurch gets the white house - even if he doesn't have enough liberal/left frenzy for their taste.

 

[BPSCG]

When I saw polls before, usually on Fox, Nader was polling 4 - 5% of the popular vote. Where's the Nader coverage - of the guy whose votes could decide the election?

Seems to me he's getting about 4-5% of the coverage.

 

[Patrick]

Seems to me he's getting about 4-5% of the coverage.

In a closely divided electorate, an election that can turn on, e.g., whether he gets the 4 or the 5, just like last time, there needs to be better than 4 or 5 coverage. Also I read in NR a few weeks ago that Kerry operatives were fanning out to key states to try to stop Nader from getting on the ballot - this, from the "Democratic" party.

 

[Rob Lister]

Seems to me he's getting about 4-5% of the coverage.

In a closely divided electorate, an election that can turn on, e.g., whether he gets the 4 or the 5, just like last time, there needs to be better than 4 or 5 coverage. Also I read in NR a few weeks ago that Kerry operatives were fanning out to key states to try to stop Nader from getting on the ballot - this, from the "Democratic" party.

This is a good move on the part of the democratic party. Nader has a certain appeal to the leftest-most of potential voters. Pushing him off the ticket might, maybe, possibly, in-your-dreams, keep a likely voter home but it will not result in a single likely Nader voter voting for Bush instead.

Good...er...strategery.

 

[c0rbin]

Seems to me he's getting about 4-5% of the coverage.

In a closely divided electorate, an election that can turn on, e.g., whether he gets the 4 or the 5, just like last time, there needs to be better than 4 or 5 coverage. Also I read in NR a few weeks ago that Kerry operatives were fanning out to key states to try to stop Nader from getting on the ballot - this, from the "Democratic" party.

Shocking. You mean politicians do dirty things to try and get elected? You make it sound like Democracts are above this sort of thing.

The Republicans are backing a horse based on integrity. I would expect to not find such dirty pool in their ranks, right? RIGHT?!?

Your simpleton partisanship has sapped your skepticism. Now go worship at your Talk Radio shrine.

 

[Rob Lister]

Your simpleton partisanship has sapped your skepticism.

Wow. That almost never happens on this forum.

 

[hgc]

Republicans have been vigorous in helping Nader with ballot access in many states. They could enhance his media access by giving him a prime-time speaking slot at their convention.

 

[Patrick]

Your simpleton partisanship has sapped your skepticism.

The thrust of my initial post, lost to you because of the noise generated by the ten megawatt nitpick facility of your brain, is that the media aren't doing their jobs. Unless, as I said, they view their job to be getting Lurch elected.

 

[Furious]

Yeah, because in politics, the Republicans would never play dirty and try to get Nader on the ballot. I'm sure his anti-business/pro-environment stances are the real reason Dick Armey is helping fund Nader's campaign.

In politics, there is no such thing as a conscience.

 

[Rob Lister]

Republicans have been vigorous in helping Nader with ballot access in many states. They could enhance his media access by giving him a prime-time speaking slot at their convention.

Ya know, that's not really a bad idea. The only problem with it is that...

Let me use an analogy: When an unpracticed troll or sock-puppet joins JREF it is fairly clear to even the novice skeptic what they are trying to accomplish. That doesn't mean they don't get 'coverage' but even those that reply to the threads know, or at least suspect to great degree, that they are just masturbating intellectually.

I would personally take offense at the republicans using such an obvious, and clearly disingenuous tactic as there are almost zero common philosophical points. I would not, however, put it above the Democratic party to use such a tactic with a third party 'conservative' candidate (i.e. floating McCain as a possible VP candidate). That's not a statement of partisenship, simply a statement presumption.

But my personal offense, which equates statisically to many 'abstain-votes' for Bush might well equate to more real votes for Nader (and consequently more 'lost' votes for Kerry), which could give Bush the win (not that he needs it because he will win by eleven, regardless).

Okay, you can go off on me now.

 

[BPSCG]

Heard the other day that Nader didn't get on the ballot in Maryland. My reaction was "so what?" Maryland's going to vote for Kerry even if he gets caught naked in bed with his granddaughter, a bottle of whiskey, a goat, and Osama. Nader has zero chance of affecting which way Maryland goes.

 

[Patrick]

Uh, any possibility anyone wants to deal with the main issue of the thread?

 

[c0rbin]

Your simpleton partisanship has sapped your skepticism.

The thrust of my initial post, lost to you because of the noise generated by the ten megawatt nitpick facility of your brain, is that the media aren't doing their jobs. Unless, as I said, they view their job to be getting Lurch elected.

Umm. In our free market society, the "media's job" is to sell advertising.

I don't think they really care who pays the bills...Nike, Kerry, Swift Boat Vets...

 

[BPSCG]

Ya know, that's not really a bad idea. The only problem with it is that...

Let me use an analogy: When an unpracticed troll or sock-puppet joins JREF it is fairly clear to even the novice skeptic what they are trying to accomplish. That doesn't mean they don't get 'coverage' but even those that reply to the threads know, or at least suspect to great degree, that they are just masturbating intellectually.

So if I understand correctly, your objection is that a Republican Nader sock puppet couldn't pull it off convincingly?

I disagree. Getting people to sign a petition in front of your local Safeway is not at all difficult. It's not like here, where you get to know people reasonably well (you know what a_u_p and Patrick are going to have to say on any given political topic). For a Republican Nader sock puppet (damn! I love the sound of that!) to be successful, he just has to hold your attention for fifteen seconds before you go inside to get your case of Bud. Your chances of detecting that he's an RNSP - practically zero.

And if the RNSP is fortunate enough to get someone who says "Sorry, I'm voting for Bush", the answer is, "Look, you can vote for whoever you want in November; all you're saying here is that you want Nader on the ballot. Do you think Nader will take more votes away from Bush or from Kerry?". Then the RNSP sits back while the Bush supporter thinks about it for a second...

I would personally take offense at the republicans using such an obvious, and clearly disingenuous tactic as there are almost zero common philosophical points.

So what? When did the rules change? When did politics start to require playing nice?

 

[Patrick]

Umm. In our free market society, the "media's job" is to sell advertising.

Uh, give yourself an "F" in economics - this is nowhere near a free market society. And if the media's job is to sell advertising, then they should stop such hypocritical cant as that they implement "the people's right to know".

 

[Patrick]

Heard the other day that Nader didn't get on the ballot in Maryland. My reaction was "so what?" Maryland's going to vote for Kerry even if he gets caught naked in bed with his granddaughter, a bottle of whiskey, a goat, and Osama. Nader has zero chance of affecting which way Maryland goes.

The issue is closely divided swing states.