digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at motherjones.com

Warning: Nader Polling at 8-10% in Michigan

motherjones.com — The polls shows these general election match-up results: McCain - 46% Clinton - 37% Nader - 10%... and Obama - 43% McCain - 41% Nader - 8%

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • vault, on 04/17/2008, -2/+32That's unusually high for him, isn't it? I don't remember him getting that much in 2004, even in individual states.
    • Gabberwok, on 04/17/2008, -17/+11That's because there was a huge backlash against him for the 2000 campaign. People remembered how close Gore was to winning the election (some would say he did), and Nader was nothing but a spoiler. He earned the contempt of the entire Democratic party for that. But now it's been a bit too long and people have forgotten and others are voting for the first time. Make no mistake though - Nader bears more responsibility for the Iraq War than almost anyone outside of the Bush administration.
      • nreynolds, on 04/17/2008, -7/+25that's completely untrue. he ran for office, some people voted for him, most didn't. that doesn't put him at fault in the slightest for the mistakes of the administration that beat his campaign. The only people to blame for the Iraq War are the people that voted for it(almost everyone in congress) and the Bush administration.
        • mrsteveman1, on 04/17/2008, -8/+9I duno, its more complex than that, consider the following:

          Nader runs, siphons away votes from the other 2 candidates, and narrows the margins of whoever was on top, perhaps even causes them to switch places. This isn't so far fetched and is an entirely possible outcome. If that's the case, it is quite clear Nader will have accomplished nothing but alter the outcome of the election for no real gain.

          If you aren't going to win, and all rational logic suggests he can't, why the ***** run, ESPECIALLY if the effect could be an overall negative?
          • redneckblues, on 04/17/2008, -7/+5He didn't owe Gore *****. That like saying Obama shouldn't have run because Hillary would obviously be the nominee. Don't presume to say who should run.
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/17/2008, -3/+8I didn't say anything about Gore......

            I said there's no point in running if you can't win, particularly if your goal in running is to call attention to certain issues, there are better ways to do so.
          • sibhod, on 04/17/2008, -5/+2It is most definitely not Nader's fault that Gore lost Florida. If anyone is to blame for Florida it's Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, SCOTUS, and most of all the Gore campaign. There were over a million registered Democrat voters in Florida that sat at home Nov. 1, 2000, and Gore lost florida by less than 500 votes. Nader's fault huh?
          • logpony, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Lulz. The entire page of anti-Nader sentiment is basically "oh some polls say person X will win; person Y has no chance of winning" that start well over a year before the voting. I'm not one to give in to some kind of mainstream media conspiracy theory, but does it not seem that saying Y cannot win, by the very fact of saying that, you decrease Y's chances? I mean, how much damage to the political system are you all doing by basically suppressing individual choice? In a perfect world, the media would not cover anything but the outcome. ***** election coverage news.
        • wphj, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3It's illogical to say running for president is useless unless you have a chance of winning. 3rd parties have had a large effect on american politics without winning any major elections at all. They bring issues into the mainstream, and usually one of the two major parties will pick up on them.
          • Gerz1219, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2If Nader gets this many votes, the major party that wins the general election will be the party least likely to take up Nader's positions. It happened in 2000 and it'll happen again in 2008.
      • sathias, on 04/17/2008, -5/+4Listen to "Machine gun in the clowns hand" by Jello Biafra, he put it the best I've heard. Nader didn't steal votes from Gore, Gore pushed them towards Nader by campaigning almost as right-wing as Bush. Fair enough for Gore supporters to be pissed off over the Florida vote re-count, but blaming Nader is a cop-out.
        • mrsteveman1, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3Thats likely true. The fact remains Nader isn't going to win.
      • smotpoker, on 04/17/2008, -4/+12Witchhunt time!!

        "Let's vilify a guy who commits an act that is completely legal and in/of itself harmless because he *gasp* inspired people to vote without regard for partisanship!"

        Maybe if the democratic party wasn't always trying to play stupid conservative pandering games right and left with their petty attacks and negligent/hypocritical governing, more people might affiliate themselves more permanently. Don't run around talking ***** about people for trying to make the world better, speak/vote their conscious and steer the country into a better future
        • mrsteveman1, on 04/17/2008, -1/+4Totally agree, the democrats need to stop ***** around. I still don't think Nader is so selfless and helpful, there are better ways to effect change, running for president without actually winning isn't on the top of that list.
        • Fafnir43, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1There's a difference between voting for someone because they're a Democrat and voting for someone because they're by far the most likely candidate to beat a Republican, and you know it.
          • smotpoker, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2I also know that there is a difference in voting to win and voting to send a message. Sometimes, for some people, the latter is more important and it should be equally respected.

            It is the belief of many that giving something valuable away for the greater good is one of the more noble things a person can do. Hypercompetitiveness in the government, economy and society as it currently exists is very likely more harmful than doing the right thing (maintaining personal values, honor, integrity, etc). Even if we don't always agree it should be respected to some degree
      • subterfuge, on 04/17/2008, -1/+7a majority of congress, as well as the president, bears responsibility for starting the iraq war. a majority of congress and the president are also responsible for its continued failure. congress has the "power of the purse" but refuses to use it
    • notque, on 04/17/2008, -14/+10Nader > Obama > Clinton > McCain

      Sounds the same as my call on the situation. Seems like rather reasonable results from the polling.
      • chmcarro, on 04/17/2008, -9/+1Barr > Nader, etc..
        • philhatesyou, on 04/17/2008, -4/+4Right, so abortions can be outlawed and fags won't be allowed to get married. Oh, and we'll continue the war on drugs. You should research someone's political positions before you decide it's a good idea to vote for them just because of the party they've joined.
          • chmcarro, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Abortion and gay marriage are not federal issues, as Bob Barr and Ron Paul understand. They are both against the war on drugs.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fSg5Fq0dxU

            It's not about what party they are in. It's about the number of syllables in their name. :)
          • philhatesyou, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2That's a ***** cop out. He signed the Defense of Marriage Act. All of you Libertarians claim to be so into a strict interpretation of the federal government's rights under The Constitution, yet you defend these asswipes who vote for laws which seek to circumvent the Full Faith and Credit Clause. He has no problem blocking medical marijuana even when it passes a referendum of voters. Furthermore, he voted to ban partial birth abortions while he was a member of congress.

            None of this is at all indicative of the man you claim he is. Once again, just because he's joined your party of choice doesn't mean he shares your views, and you're an idiot for thinking so.
        • tolbs, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Roseanne Barr? :)
      • alex7575, on 04/17/2008, -4/+58/10% > 43% > 37% > 41/46%

        Your math's a bit off
        • notque, on 04/17/2008, -1/+5I understand, but Nader's movement gives my interpretation. Obviously it isn't a literal explanation of the voting.
        • t0x2c, on 04/17/2008, -0/+08/10% + 43% + 37% + 41/46%

          who's math is off now?
          • patm1987, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1so, the official statistics are:
            80>0.43>0.37>89.1304
            and
            80+0.43+0.37+89.1304 = 169.93?

            of course, maybe the request is to construct a vector space where 80>0.43>0.37>89.1304 and where addition of these three terms is defined? Or maybe specifications for another space that doesn't have an inner product or scalar multiplication but addition is defined? I wonder what the Matrix would look like, if one could be constructed, that would transform from the real number space to this space and if this matrix is invertible.
          • ExitMoose, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1whose grammar is off now?
      • swiftekho, on 04/17/2008, -6/+5Paul > Obama > Nader > McCain + Clinton
    • diggrnumber1, on 04/17/2008, -5/+14michigan's different. the state is full of unionized employees, and they are having a major statewide recession. they are fed up enough that they would vote for anyone who isn't a major candidate. i bet some of these guys would have voted for hitler if they had the chance. i think some of these autoworkers are forgetting that they're still earning huge salaries in comparison to American employees of Japanese automakers. they clearly don't understand economics.
      • m0tbaillie, on 04/17/2008, -2/+14As someone who lives in Michigan, let me say two things.

        1) Don't digg this guy down, he's absolutely right.
        2) ***** this state. It is comprised of disgruntled hicks who are pissed that, because the auto industry is going belly-up in this country and Michigan is no longer the motor capital of the country, they can no longer make $40/hr sweeping floors at GM.
        • bugsy187, on 04/17/2008, -2/+5There is a problem in Michigan. Management has been building plants in other countries, instead of investing in new, efficient equipment at home. Management also focused on SUVs for years and let the economy car market get eaten up by competition. We've heard about a crisis with health benefits too, but workers have been paying into that system for years. An executive at Toyota said that if GM had been setting aside the proper amount of money there would be no problem. So, where is all the money going? What good will concessions make if the whole situation stinks of a large scale con?

          Your hatred of honest working class people is a bit disturbing, but I guess it reflects the corporate propaganda we're constantly fed in the media. Working people could make concessions, but this would only undermine the automakers market. Who will buy your cars if everyone is out of work? Is that considered in diggernumber1's economics? How is racing to the bottom a sound social and economic strategy?

          When I hear people from Michigan talk as you do, they tend to be from the Bloomfield Hills trust fund crowd. I don't know if you're from that group, but I suppose it doesn't matter. It's just irritating to hear you and diggrnumber1 slander honest working people trying to raise families. These are real people and not a scornful cartoon caricature.
        • fr3nch13, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2I am also from Michigan and I agree with m0tbaillie. (Not everyone their are hicks though). In High School there was no real motivation to get a higher education. If you could get into a factory you could make a nice living starting at age 18. Now with the changes this doesn't happen anymore. Now we have all of these people that are so specialized they don't have any other skills.

          @bugsy187 I'm talking as someone from St. Clair County. My dad is a mechanic and my mom is a nurse and I am far from a trust fund Bloomfield Hill kid.

          I decided to go to college and get an engineering degree. When I graduated last year there were no jobs in Michigan for me. So, like many other graduates I moved out of state.
          • bugsy187, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1I'll just say that unions have historically been demonized by corporations. When beating up and assassinating union leaders turned the public against the companies they resorted to "scientific" means of strike breaking. Namely, they uses the press to turn the public against the unions. Times are tough in Michigan. I used to live there. That doesn't mean, though, that people should make long term concessions on salary and benefits. The companies always scapegoat someone. When civil rights was an issue, they blamed blacks for taking all of the jobs. When women's lib was big, they blamed the lack of jobs on women flooding the market. The latest culprit tends to be China, which, in fact, far under performs productivity of American workers. There's always an excuse and they're good at making it sound sensible. Consider that American factory workers are twice as productive now as they were in the early 70s...AND with 1/3 fewer workers. Are we twice as wealthy as in 1973? Where is the wealth going? We can defer to the factory owners and media information without doing research of our own, but we're setting ourselves up for failure. There's every reason for a factory owner to exploit his workers for every dollar possible... at least in the short term. My point is that concessions are not the answer. It makes more sense to hold out on a lack of hiring and to support unions. Love them or hate them, they're the best structures for representing workers' interests. "Benevolent" management (however good and honest the people could be) are under pressure to exploit workers. Working people must represent their own interests.
      • Rosco, on 04/17/2008, -1/+5As another soon-to-be former Michigan resident, you have no idea how right you are. But don't forget, there is a lot more manufacturing in this state then just automotive. And I can tell you this, it is all sliding downhill, fast, in this state. I don't want to leave, my family has lived here for over 100 years, but at this point I see no choice. Pay is falling, taxes keep going up, the price just to stay warm in the winter is skyrocketing, my car is on empty most of the time, and the state decided to give a 40% rebate to Hollywood people to come here and make movies. That ***** doesn't help me or my family, and I have had enough. I've been on the job for over 15 years and if one more small thing happens I could lose my home. I'd rather sell it and just leave, if I can't make what I'm worth here, I know other states where I can.
    • Elranzer, on 04/17/2008, -1/+7All the people I know who are Republicans are dying for Ralph Nader to be on the ballet. When I ask them why, they all give the same answer-- they know he will steal votes from Obama and help McCain win. A lot of them also suggested Hillary should run as an Independent if she loses the primary.

      The same people also do not want Bloomberg or any conservtive Independent running, for the prospect of McCain losing any possible votes.

      They want one candidate (McCain) to gather all of the conservative votes, and want the liberal vote to be divided (Obama/Nader/Hillary) so they can't win.
      • notque, on 04/17/2008, -1/+4That's true. They do hope for him to take votes away. And the system continue perpetuating itself in a cycle of 1 party.
      • smotpoker, on 04/17/2008, -2/+5It may be true that it's a hope/concern, but I doubt Nader would take many votes from Obama. Obama would get some Nader-votes and a fair amount of republican-votes. Democrats ***** up by trying to swing so far right the last couple of elections.

        A majority of Americans are to the left Republicans and a fair number are to the left of most Dems in office, so they don't bother voting or only vote to the leftist candidates. Obama can draw from repubs, lefties and maintain votes of all except some of the most right-wing dems (Hillary supporters), IMO
        • patpl22391, on 04/17/2008, -4/+2you are a fool. America is generally is moderate-right, not left.
          • smotpoker, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Nope, it only appears that way because the right tend to have more money or stand out more (tend to be more vocal/aggressive and vote). Most of America, including some of the republicans who are voting ignorantly due to religion/family/partisanship, are more liberal.

            The government is as it is, in large part, because the impoverished (who are mostly lefties) gave up on it a long time ago
          • patpl22391, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Our Country is a lot more conservative if you consider the rest of the world. Candidates don't run as "liberals". They try to call themselves "progressives" because of the negative stigma that comes with it. Many candidates run as "conservatives" whether the really are or not. Your statement about how the right has "more money" is ignorant. Just look at the figures and you will see how much the Democrats have made compared to the Republicans. I don't call voting a certain way due to religious beliefs, "ignorance". You sir, are ignorant.
          • smotpoker, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Yes, relative to the rest of the world, most of the country is pretty conservative in many respects, however this is primarily with the older generations and more rural areas (due to more religion and less education, I believe).

            With each generation getting more liberal, propagated in part by exposure to more information and more urbanization, so does the country. Twenty years ago I would consider most of the country pretty conservative and I still do, but I believe the majority leans to the left.

            They do not run as "liberals" because most of them aren't. You are right that conservatives have managed to vilify the term and get dems to distance themselves but a majority of them and their policies are moderate/middle at best. However, I am not talking about the candidates or a party name but rather the country as a whole.

            The candidates, like most of the country, believe there aren't enough liberal-minded people to create a third party and properly contest the republicans. Since to do so they would have to openly admit being liberal and liberalism is so strongly vilified by "serious politicians" for so long, they are probably right. As a result, they join the dems (who are simply less conservative) and try to nudge policy and populace in a more liberal direction.

            Your statement to "just look at the figures" is ignorant. The reason why Dems have made more money (primarily Obama, the MORE LIBERAL candidate whose donations are like 90% less than $100) is because they compromise the majority of the population and the reason there is so many of them is because they have become inspired for the first time [in years] (I know I've been able to vote for 10 years and he is the first candidate to ever really inspire me our society could change for the better - a few years ago with his speech on gov vs religion)

            "I don't call voting a certain way due to religious beliefs, "ignorance". " - I don't know many people who would. Get a brain, dickface, and stop trying to make baseless attacks and take ***** out of context. You know good and well I was referring to people jumping on the bandwagon because a candidate claims to support x, y or z when they have never really looked at the candidates or judged for themselves.

            You sir, are a moron. Let me know when you get out of 5th grade or can engage in an intelligent/constructive debate without your petty name-calling or intentional misinterpretations because your panties get all wadded
      • spankalee, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4This is why we need Instant Runoff Voting for Presidential elections. IRV gets rid of the problems of strategic voting and 3rd party candidates and lets voters express their true preferences without the risk of helping elect someone they dislike.

        Checkout fairvote.org. This needs to happen for our democracy to thrive.
        • Fafnir43, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Actually, IRV doesn't eliminate the spoiler effect in some cases, and there are situations in which voting for a candidate can cause him to lose. (See Wikipedia for more details.) I prefer approval voting myself.
    • Kautylia, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3All the registered Democrats in Michigan are pissed off because the party refuses to seat their delegates at the national election. It is absolutely no surprise that they are flocking to someone like Nadar. The Democrats need to get those delegates seated one way or the other both there and Florida, lest this sort of thing happen!
    • chassach, on 04/17/2008, -3/+0There is a lot of Obama spam on Digg at the moment but this is important. Even if Hillary win the nomination, she will not win the presidential. Her cynicism and deception has alienated too many people (black/young people particularly). Some of them won`t bother turning up to vote, a few might go for McCain and a significant group would go for Nader. Loss.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3Where's Ron Paul?

      *I HAD TO ASK!!!!!*
    • Karna101, on 04/17/2008, -2/+4Paul >>>>>>>>>>>> Nade r> Obama ~McCain > Clinton
    • swiftheart, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0It's 7 months to the election. Having alternative candidates in polling at this time allows people to "cast a non-binding protest vote" (allowing them to bitch about the current candidates and their campaigns, as well as express their preferences for the values of the alternative candidate.) Once the real election comes most of those people will vote strategically and take a major party candidate.
  • PeachesTheCow, on 04/17/2008, -1/+61What's with that Photo on the digg link?
    • Ajajadude, on 04/17/2008, -4/+28"Run for your lives, people are willing to vote for Nader"?
      • notque, on 04/17/2008, -2/+5They said the same thing about Eugene Debs.. Can't allow positive change to occur for the population. It's business or bust.
    • andy314159pi, on 04/17/2008, -4/+6Nader gets another Republican elected and then we have an open ended commitment to an unwinnable conflict in Iraq, as depicted in the picture.
    • Flashman, on 04/17/2008, -1/+6"Vote for Nader and this child dies."
    • Aard88, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4It's Nader saving a little girl from a horrific Corvair explosion in 1965. In the process he destroyed any chance that the US would produce compact fuel efficient cars, that people would drive, forever.
  • tbhurst, on 04/17/2008, -4/+11[gulp] That's okay. The Dems will have a solid enough lead to not let the Nader vote have any impact on the final outcome in the general...right?
    • vault, on 04/17/2008, -1/+15I don't think so, especially when you consider how divided the party is to begin with over Hillary/Obama. The Democrats managed to turn what would have been an easy win after Bush into a crisis. Well done. Howard Dean will one day be studied by political science students as an example of how not to run a party.
      • InspectorGadget, on 04/17/2008, -0/+6Well, Dean is the guy that lost to the guy (that lost to the guy?) that lost to Bush. How that justifies heading a major political party beggars belief.
        • Elranzer, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1Dean was winning over Kerry before he decided to drop out. If he stayed in, there's a good chance he would have beat Bush. Most Democrats like Dean; Kerry wasn't well-liked even within his own party (parallels to McCain??)
        • vault, on 04/17/2008, -0/+6*insert Dean scream here*
        • 11b1p, on 04/17/2008, -0/+6YAOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
        • exomni, on 04/17/2008, -5/+1Dean would have done much better than Kerry. Everyone hated Kerry, even the Democrats say what you will about the 2004 election, but the 2000 election was lost solely because Kerry was a terrible candidate.
    • notque, on 04/17/2008, -6/+7I'm voting for Nader as my state doesn't matter in the general.
      • diggrnumber1, on 04/17/2008, -5/+5i wouldn't vote for nader even if the only other choice was hillary.
        • notque, on 04/17/2008, -1/+7why?
          • diggrnumber1, on 04/17/2008, -3/+5because nader's basically a communist
          • notque, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3No he isn't. He isn't remotely a communist. More socialist, yes, but not communist.
        • orangefly, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5i was with you till you said hillary....
    • yojiffyskippy, on 04/17/2008, -1/+4That sounds like a bad Gore flashback.
    • AGsilver, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Depends, some people in this country disagree with the issues that both the Democrats and Republicans represent. For instance, what if the people wanted to stop increasing troops in Afghanistan, not consider military force in Iran, spend less money on military, and stop the war on terrorism. Neither McCain, Hillary, or Obama represent ANY of these issues.

      People vote third party when they feel that the main candidates aren't representing their issues.
  • mrsammercer, on 04/17/2008, -13/+82If Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for Nader. I'd hate to see a repeat of 2000, but I cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary. Her tactics are so close to Neocon tactics and one of the biggest problems with American politics, in my opinion, is that these diversionary political tactics keep everyone's eyes off the real problems and focused on petty *****. The two party system has grown stagnant, anyway. We need to have a respectable third party so if there's no candidate I honestly support, may as vote to open up the system, right?
    • notque, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3Sounds good to me.
    • MillionsLivio, on 04/17/2008, -10/+16If Hillary is the nominee I'm voting for Paul.
    • TheWorm, on 04/17/2008, -17/+10You're an idiot then. Anyone who is a true Obama supporter and believes in the issues he stands for should not vote out of spite in the unlikely case that Hilary wins. It just shows you're buying too much into the "hating hilary" and overlooking the fact that they have very similar approaches to almost every single issue. I agree she lacks something that Obama has, but if you vote wouldn't vote for her then you were never a real Obama supporter.
      • notque, on 04/17/2008, -12/+4They have the same positions, and yet people treat Obama differently because he acts like a blank slate you can write your hopes and dreams on.

        Too bad he doesn't actually have the positions that his supporters give him.
      • pedo, on 04/17/2008, -5/+10i think you mean "anyone who is a true Democrat" and "you were never a real Democrat"

        and how the ***** do you know he is voting "out of spite"?

        and hillary and obama are not "very similar" but if you want to believe that, go for it and vote for the lying, scandalous, unscrupulous bitch.
        • TheWorm, on 04/17/2008, -5/+3Their campaigns are based around the exact same stances on the exact same issues. He's voting out of spite because he's saying that he would turn against a similarly positioned candidate simply because his candidate didn't win. It shows that he never cared about ending the war, or getting a good health care system in the first place.
          • pedo, on 04/17/2008, -1/+7really? did you read the comment? what part said that he would vote for mccain "simply because his candidate didn't win"???

            maybe you should re-read the part where he says, "I cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary."

            that doesn't sound like spite to me. and dismissing him as an idiot only makes you look like one.
          • TheWorm, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1I never said he would vote for Mccain either. I said turn against a "similarly positioned candidate".
            If he truly believed in Barack Obama's issues, but refuses to vote for Hilary if she won, then that is spite.
            I am a strong proponent of America getting off the 2 party system, but for now I am simply expressing my opinion that there is no way that in MY good conscience vote for Nader.
          • YourDoom123, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1ethics do matter though. the point of voting for nader is to say that I don't approve of any of the candidates that i'm given a choice of at this time. its not spite, its a conscience
          • PhillAholic, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1I don't think you get it. If Clinton and Obama had carbon copy, word for word plans and statements made about every issue during this election, it wouldn't matter. He's talking about the way Clinton has presented herself, through the exposed lies and dirty politics that would cause him not to vote for her. I would do the same thing. Maybe he believes what Obama says and doesn't believe Clinton. You can't solely vote for a candidate based on the issues when they have a history of lying, cheating and otherwise dirty political behavior.
        • Fafnir43, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1He said they're very similar on the issues. There's a big difference. Basically, Hillary is a lying, manipulative bitch, but she at least claims to espouse most of the same solutions for the country's problems that Obama does. We'd be looking at a horribly corrupt presidency, but probably not as damaging a presidency as McCain's would be. (That said, if I was American and Hillary won the Democratic primary, I would stay just long to vote for her in the general then emigrate in disgust, gagging and retching.)
      • MaximusD, on 04/17/2008, -1/+6Hilary is funded by corporations and voted for an illegal and unjust war. The Clintons have allowed corporate conglomeration and pushed unfair trade deals. They watched the genocide in Rwanda. And Bill has been taking millions from various business owners to give them political leverage since he left office, instead of continuing to dedicate himself to public service. So no, she is not the same. She may have similar policies, but cannot be trusted. Obama isn't revolutionary because he is going to turn our system upside down -- he's going to modestly reform it, but can be trusted because he is popularly funded by millions of Americans -- not the business elite.
        • PhillAholic, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1That's about the best way to sum it up. Dugg up.
      • thatcrazycommie, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
    • diggrnumber1, on 04/17/2008, -6/+11i'm an obama supporter, but if hillary is the nominee i am voting for hillary. my vote would help to prevent mccain from becoming president.
      • muckemuck, on 04/17/2008, -4/+5Either way your vote is wasted on a corrupt system. Both parties are working hard to run the US completely into the crapper.
      • spurtle, on 04/17/2008, -4/+3Hillary is more dangerous than McCain.
    • TheWorm, on 04/17/2008, -10/+8I ran out of edit time. How could you "in good conscience" vote for Nader, knowing that you're throwing away all the policies of change that even Hilary is bringing to the democratic nomination, and basically handing the election to Mccain.
      • muckemuck, on 04/17/2008, -3/+7ah yes.. .the old "throwing your vote away" mantra... the two parties have done well drilling that into the brains of the Americans. How about voting for the person that has the best policy on the important issues rather than voting for the lesser of two evils just because the media tells you that you have to vote for one or the other?
        • furi0us1, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Will "voting your conscience" make you feel good? Will that give you a warm fuzzy feeling when Mccain picks up the Iran tourch where Bush left it? I guess when this country is totally ruined because McCain continued on Bush's policies, you'll always have that to fall back on...
          • muckemuck, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Yes, it will. If McCain wins it's because the Democrats didn't do their job, and more importantly it's because the masses didn't realize that the two parties have fixed the system and they need to be cast aside.
        • YourDoom123, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2so i essence what your saying is that your vote is a vote against mccain, not a vote for hillary... in otherwords your voting out of spite...sound familiar?
          • muckemuck, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1It's not a vote FOR Hillary. It's NOT a vote out of spite. It's a vote AGAINST the broken two party system that is running our country into the ground.
        • Fafnir43, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Look. There are two separate issues here. You want to vote for the person with views closest to yours, and you want those views - or something as close to them as possible - to become reality. Voting is when you get to decide which one is more important to you. Personally, I consider influencing the real world more important than getting a warm fuzzy feeling, but YMMV.
          • muckemuck, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1So you're saying the make believe fabricated by the RNC, DNC, and media is the "real world"... ? wow.. you did watch the debate the other night, right? You do realize the media is constantly distracting you by creating BS issues like "bittergate" for days instead of focusing on real issues? .. it's all a farce created by the two parties.
      • TheWorm, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Because America does not have a proportional electoral system for the executive branch, and we're trying to vote for change not for 'spreading the word' of Ralph Nader.
    • MrTito, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3Eh, I'll just vote for Obama via write-in even if he's not the nominee. In the end, I'd rather say I cast my vote for him than anyone else running.
      • furi0us1, on 04/17/2008, -5/+0Will that make you feel good? Will that give you a warm fuzzy feeling when Mccain picks up the Iran tourch where Bush left it? I guess when this country is totally ruined because McCain continued on Bush's policies, you'll always have that to fall back on.
    • TheWorm, on 04/17/2008, -6/+6It scares me that people are burying my comment.
      • Scheissen, on 04/17/2008, -9/+2libtard
      • tschau, on 04/17/2008, -1/+5I am burying your comments just because of this one. Come on man, 3 comments in a row in the main thread? Reply to yourself or something if you're going to say something as self-referencing as this.

        I agree with you, but that's irrelevant.
        • TheWorm, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1It's not a main thread. It's a discussion branching off another post.
    • gryphon50, on 04/17/2008, -5/+6you are an idiot. Hillary is not my first choice but if it comes to that, I will vote for her. To vote for Nader, you might as well go ahead and vote Republican. It's because of Nader that we have had Bush for the last eight years.
      • drugged, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2People seem to be forgetting that a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain... If McCain gets in, we may as well call it a day and find a new country, cause this one won't be around much after that.
    • TheWorm, on 04/17/2008, -5/+2Obama is turning into a damn cult if you're blind enough to throw any prospect of change away simply if Obama didn't win. Hilary may lack total honesty, and inspiration but if you think that ***** McCain, has either of those two things over Clinton then you aren't using your head.
      • mrsammercer, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1That's why I wouldn't vote for McCain. I'd vote for Nader. I personally like Nader and his policies. And I am not a democrat. I recently changed my affiliation so that I can vote in the democratic primary because I very much like Obama. If he's not the nominee, I feel abolutely no allegiance to the democratic party. In fact, it made me feel dirty to affiliate myself with either of the major parties.
        Where did I say I was voting for Nader out of spite? If I voted for Hillary, it'd be out of spite for McCain. I do not like her as a candidate. If it's McCain, Nader and Clinton; I like Nader. So, that's who I'd vote for. Luckily, it doesn't look like it will come down to that.
        And, you know, their policies might not be all that different, Hillary and Obama, but their political styles couldn't be more different. When our international image is in the state it's in, that type of thing becomes more than cosmetic. We need a charismatic leader that is likable and able to garner support in the international community and from more than just Britain. I just don't see that leader in Hillary Clinton.
    • colincornaby, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3I'd vote for Hillary in the general election. She's not better than Obama, but if it was between her and McCain... well... she's the only one that would represent any hope of getting us out of Iraq.
    • exomni, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Hillary's tactics may be close to neocon tactics, but McCain's tactics ARE neocon tactics. A vote against Barack or (if, hypothetically, Hillary was the nominee) against Clinton is a vote for McCain.
    • minorthreat, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Her tactics suck.. but her in office is better than a neocon...
  • salamanderdave, on 04/17/2008, -26/+10Ron Paul 2008?
    I have seen the media ignore him and flat out not mention that he is still running. He is has gotten 3-25% in all states so far as I know. He got 14% in Nevada and 25% in Wyoming.
    • vault, on 04/17/2008, -7/+19Paul has even less chance than Nader, salamander.
      • Radanator, on 04/17/2008, -3/+2Why do you say that?
        • ThndrShk2k, on 04/17/2008, -1/+7Because he's trying for the republican ticket.
        • brstilson, on 04/17/2008, -6/+5Because Ron Paul's ideas offend just about every demographic in the country. He wants to get rid of the Department of Education, so there goes the educated vote. He wants to get rid of Social Security, so there goes the senior citizen vote. He won't provide universal healthcare, so there goes the Democrat vote. He wants to end the war in Iraq, so there goes the Republican vote. Seriously, the only people left to vote for him are neo-anarchist wannabes comprised mostly of engineers and IT guys.
          • ThndrShk2k, on 04/17/2008, -1/+6He wants to get rid of the bureaucracy of the DoE, because things like No Child Left Behind being funded at a federal level, mandated over the country is RUINING the education. More local based funding and examination of education to a standard agreed upon by a state held board, along with communications and standards that the whole country has, would be a better use of the money. You money pays for your local schools, and not for corrupt programs like NCLB.
            Social Security he wants to give an option for the younger crowd to opt out, while the older crowd he wants the funds secure. Currently the government is spending it on the war and other *****. They are 'BORROWING' -FROM- the SOCIAL SECURITY FUND. Ron Paul basically wants to ensure the old people now get their money and that the younger people can get out from the system so they are not promised money that they can't get.
            Universal Health Care mandated to all citizens is kinda bs in the first place. What if I pay for MY OWN health care provider? Why the ***** should I pay into a provider that due to bureaucracy won't accept any of my claims because I'm covered? Why should it be federal care in which my money could potentially go to some non-tax paying person? An optional, although defaultly applied (and having you have to opt out of it instead of applying to it), state level health care system properly managed would be much better, as it would help people more local to you, as well as enhance coverability. This may seem like a selfish reason, but the bureaucracy of a federal system with it would ruin most good things about the system and waste money better spent in a more local system.
            Ending the war in Iraq, even many republicans want out. You think less than 30% of america is republican (according to the bush satisfaction polls)? It's obviously more than that.

            The people who want to vote for Ron Paul want to vote for him because he knows the prices we are being FORCED to pay (our freedoms and liberties) for the agendas of those in current DC. So what if some things he says could be taken the wrong way. It doesn't matter what way they could be taken as long as the way he sets up is adiquate, and he follows through with his promises about those things. Doing what a candidate promised is a VERY RARE thing in politics today.

            (Also, for getting rid of the programs, you just don't go "OH HEY! DoE guys, you're fired!" You actually set up a timeline, and help the states enhance their own programs for the same motive. That way you properly transfer the power of the federal government back to the states, letting voters in that local area have more say on how the budget is spent.)
          • brstilson, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2I'm not arguing against Ron paul's policies, just that they're not popular enough to get him elected.
        • homah, on 04/17/2008, -2/+6@brstilson:

          It also leaves people who understand he is FOR education (at the local/state level), is FOR people not paying into a system for which they won't get their money back after the system goes belly up, is FOR keeping the country out of debt and keeping our soldiers from getting killed fighting an unwinnable "war on terror," and is FOR people having a choice on how to obtain healthcare instead of having yet another inefficient government program taking their money and doing it for them.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 04/17/2008, -3/+4I'd say they're neck-n-neck. 0% chance -vs- 0% chance.
    • Subliminational, on 04/17/2008, -3/+7If only Ron was a better speaker....
      • diggrnumber1, on 04/17/2008, -7/+2the way he speaks, along with the gestures he makes, sort of reminds me of hitler's rallies. not to say that would prevent me from voting for him (i'm not voting for him because his ideas are ***** retarded, not because he gives speeches like hitler). anyway, look at a video of him, then watch a video of hitler, and you'll see what i'm talking about. they both have very demagogic speaking styles.
        • ThndrShk2k, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1Problem: Hitler was successful.
          Problem: Current administration and social norm is more like nazi regime than previous administrations. Anything completely opposite of this administration seems to be further from facism rather than closer to it.

          Problem: Godwin's Law
    • onetimer, on 04/17/2008, -16/+18***** Ron paul. That's right, I said it. It will be a cold day in hell before I vote for a candidate that wants to

      -Overturn Roevwade and send abortion rights to be infringed by the states in violation of the 14th amendment
      -Doesn't support Net Neutrality
      -Doesn't support funding of scientific research
      -Wants to define life at conception
      -Wants to abolish ALL anti-trust/corporate-regulation laws
      -Doesn't believe in Evolution, despite having gone to medical school

      Ron paul was a 19th century fringe-christian-right-wing demagogue who swindled a bunch of people on the internet who didn't research past his buzzword campaign slogans.
      • diggrnumber1, on 04/17/2008, -5/+2i knew about all of these things, but i never knew that he had voted against net neutrality. i was going to correct you, but i just looked it up, and apparently he did vote against net neutrality and opposes it (although he has softened his opposition). but i don't get it now. i thought the whole reason he was so popular was because he was FOR net neutrality. so that leaves his personality and speaking skills to steer the masses in his direction. but when he speaks, he sounds mentally unstable, so that can't be it. well, i guess hitler sounded mentally unstable when he spoke, and people in germany still liked him (at first). but i don't think that we can compare america to pre-nazi germany - we're not that messed-up yet. will somebody who's not a ron paul fanboy please explain?
        • homah, on 04/17/2008, -1/+6Well, I guess I am a "fanboy", but he is opposed to it because he believes in the free market and is generally opposed to government intervention/regulation. While net neutrality might sound like a good thing, I'm sure he envisions it leading towards government over-regulation of the internet down the road.
        • ThndrShk2k, on 04/17/2008, -1/+5Well the reason why he is against net neutrality is because it's government intervention and regulation. The market can decide what providers to use. However with a monopoly, the government is there to protect the people from the abuse of the corporation. The market can not develop with a monopoly, thus the net-neutrality can not be resolved with the market unless the monopoly is broken, or mandates are placed.

          He has softened to the idea of net neutrality, and hopefully more realising that his free-market and anti-regulation beliefs intertwine with this issue.

          As with the Hitler thing, they didn't think hitler was retarded. Objective context shows that hitler was a great speaker, touching germans feelings with their current situation. Discrimination those days was something normal, nothing unusual. He promised rise in power and honor, and to do that, they must destroy the ones who dare sully the german nation!
          Almost how the government treats the people today, especially those of middle eastern decent.

          Paul just stutters a lot and is getting old.
          • diggrnumber1, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2i never said anything about hitler being retarded. i said he was mentally unstable.
          • card51short, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1well i say YOU are mentally unstable.
            But it doesn't mean anything.
      • homah, on 04/17/2008, -2/+10Either we were swindled, or:

        - We believe that Roe v Wade oversteps the bounds of the intent of the 14th amendment and/or We believe in a decentralized government
        - We believe that Net Neutrality is the first step towards the inevitable government over-regulation of the internet
        - We believe that the government funds scientific research in an inefficient manner and/or We believe that the federal government's role is not to fund scientific research
        - We don't care what Ron Paul's personal opinion is on how the beginning of life is defined because it will have absolutely no impact on his presidency, and we would rather worry about real issues such as how we are going into massive debt funding an unwinnable "war on terror"
        - We believe in the free market and/or We believe that corporate laws lead to anything but a level playing field (see the Bear Stearns fiasco)
        - We don't care what Ron Paul's personal opinion on evolution is and/or We realize that you posted an overly simplified version of his views on evolution

        It is a cold day in hell.
        • thrashertm, on 04/17/2008, -2/+7Great post - you're my hero. Seriously.
    • Depthfunction, on 04/17/2008, -5/+6Ron Paul is polling at 2% - as usual.

      Those Nevada numbers are bogus. He and Romney were the only GOP candidates to campaign in that state. His numbers for that primary were as much a response of Nevada voters protesting against the other candidates who did not campaign there as anything else.

      Ron Paul's campaign was a total, incompetent disaster. He had money flowing in from all directions and how did he spend it? He rented a blimp! A ***** blimp!
      • thrashertm, on 04/17/2008, -2/+8Actually he didn't rent the blimp - that was organized by his supporters. As an ardent supporter, I am bitterly disappointed that his campaign failed so completely in a conventional sense. However, he has woken up a lot of people about the sad state that our country is in. This could be the groundwork for a win in the next election or too.

        Now I know that we must strive for liberty.
      • homah, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3The blimp was rented by supporters as thrasher said. However, you happen to be right, though, that his campaign has not been run very well. He still has 5 million in the coffer. Not sure what he is waiting to spend it on. Hopefully, it goes to good use.
    • chubbybubba, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1In Nevada people hate McCain. He's anti-gambling and pro Yucca Mountain. (If he runs with Mitt however, things might change.)
      • onetimer, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3Mitt Romney and John McCain get along together about as well as Richard Dawkins and Pat Robertson.

        Of course, weirder combinations have happened (the 1960 dem ticket of Kennedy/Johnson comes to mind, as those two were also bitter rivals)
    • baldduck, on 04/17/2008, -3/+4Umm...dude, where have you been? Digg got over the Ron Paul thing like a month ago.
      • mesasone, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2More than that, but some people actually believed in him and his message rather than simply jumping on to the Bandwagon.
  • zephyear, on 04/17/2008, -3/+10ugh, polling right now isn't a guidelinefor november, you people.
  • jcm267, on 04/17/2008, -20/+15This is a warning? I say it's a cause for celebration!
    • notque, on 04/17/2008, -12/+7***** yes it is. When does Nader join Digg Candidates?
  • youtellme8, on 04/17/2008, -51/+49***** Ralph Nader. If he robs the democrats of yet another win, he may go down in history as one of the primary causes of the fall of America.
    • timbofirstblood, on 04/17/2008, -12/+48First of all, which win did he "rob" from the Democrats? He was irrelevant in 2004, and there were a number of third party candidates in Florida in 2000 that had enough votes to cover the difference between Gore and Bush. Also, if he gets votes fair and square, how can you say he is robbing the democrats of a victory. The Dems don't own those votes. If they want them, they need to field a candidate who can win them. Don't blame Nader for the Dems attractiong enough voters.
      • Sidzilla, on 04/17/2008, -2/+8Florida didn't decide Gore vs. Bush, it was just the last state counted. What decided Gore vs Bush, if anything, was the fact that Al Gore couldn't carry his home state. Tennessee had enough delegates to make Florida of no consequence. Anyone who knows politics will tell you that if a candidate can't carry their home state they need to get out of politics. (Which he did, by the way.)
        • Sidzilla, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1My mistake, I said delegates when I meant electoral votes. I got caught up in the primary election jargon. Sorry.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 04/17/2008, -2/+6youtellme8 sounds like a true liberal. Just like all their other entitlements, liberals think they're entitled to all Democratic votes even when they nominate candidates like Gore, Kerry, Hillary and Obama.
      • bernoulliv2, on 04/17/2008, -5/+2ideally, i'd agree with you. But Ralph nader is syphoning votes from the democratic party. And while democrats must earn these votes nader currently attracts, there is something to be said for the least bad choice. If Nader believes all the sweet progressive nothings he whispers every election year, he should realize that the party that rpresents the antithesis of what he believes (versus the democrats, who are a hell of a lot closer to where Nader is than the republicans) are leveraging him to full effect.

        Nader robs a sizable number of democratic votes. And with national polling closer, the media turns a small democratic advantage into naught because they are dying for a close race (better ratings since the populace watches a close race more closely).

        It's tragic; If Nader truly believes in the principles he holds dogmatically (so dogmatically that he doesn't want any role in the democratic party, where maybe he could work diligently to bring the democratic party closer to his position on those positions he finds most important while compromising a bit on those he feels are less urgent; his stictly third party approach has done nothing to move the country or the debate his direction), his actions are laying his principles to waste. Republicans need every inch in their "divide and conquer, 51% of the vote strategy" and Nader's been helping them to move the country and the debate to the right.

        Nice guy. Really liked what i heard when i say him speaking on C-Span. But like somone once said " Your actions speak so loudly that i cannot hear what you have to say". The negative unintended consequences of his actions only work to undermine what he's working towards. kinda sad.
        • chassach, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0Can they really be called "unintended consequences" at this stage? If he belongs to the progressive wing of politics why doesn`t he join the dems and fight for the dem nomination. If he did that he would not be playing a major part in stopping change. But no, that involves too much compromise with other people and not enough personal glory.
    • smotpoker, on 04/17/2008, -2/+14So any vote that isn't for a republican is rightful property of democrats?

      Democrats are conservative enough to worry a lot of people in various respects. You aren't *entitled* to anyone's vote. While you guys were running around whining about Nader, Bush & Co. were actually LITERALLY stealing your votes and actively preventing them. Rather than take measures to try to hold them accountable or prevent/rectify such theft, you let them and MSM ridicule/lull you into dismissing it entirely as conspiracy theory and continue throwing more fits about Nader.

      Don't blame Nader for your own ignorance and inaction and don't blame his supporters for not conforming into whatever philosophy/beliefs you or your party dictate are appropriate for the moment.
      • muckemuck, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2ok.. if you are inflamed by what smotpoker said.. go watch this..
        http://tinyurl.com/5u5um4
        Hacking Democracy
        Make sure you watch the last 15 minutes or so. They do a mock election that shows how the machine can be rigged. .. then go back and watch the whole thing. It's worth it.
      • hojo05, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2I agree with you. I am from Michigan, and I am actually voting for Nader. I am not a fan of the two party system, and people need to wake up and see that blaming Nader for the 2000 election is ridiculous. I am not sure what happened in Florida but Gore shouldn't have gave up so easily.
        The Democrats are actually finding ways to ruin democracy as well by trying to force people, like Nader, to not be able to run in every state. Nader has been suing the DNC because of bullying tactics that DNC has been using on 3rd party candidates like Nader. Republicans and Democrats are pretty much the same when it comes to ruining our democracy, and I can at least say I do not support their actions.
    • eclectro, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4The democratic party/obama have to stand on it's own feet, no matter what third party candidate comes up. There was a time when Ross Perot was more popular than Nader is today. Unfortunately, you have Clinton on her kamikaze campaign showing no end. If you're gonna get mad, get mad at that.
    • hrm114, on 04/17/2008, -2/+5Actually Americans will go down in history as the downfall of America. So ***** typical for Americans to put the blame on one person.
    • NuclearWookie, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4Yes, a man's participation in our republic exactly as it is outlined in the Constitution will be the downfall of our republic.
    • tnoy, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5You could also blame the ~317,000 Democrats that didnt vote in 2000.
    • ZacharyStanton, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3Ah, yes, because the Democrats are the only solution for this country. Without their ambiguous calls for change, we're doomed.
    • phantasm000, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2***** you.
  • m2garand, on 04/17/2008, -5/+7Polls this early are meaningless.
  • orangefly, on 04/17/2008, -10/+2wtf is a nader....???....
  • fodbirdy, on 04/17/2008, -13/+4I think it's about time Mr. Nader takes a nice long "swim" in the Potomac
  • onetimer, on 04/17/2008, -25/+23A vote for Nader at this point in time is basically a vote for the GOP candidate. You can keep clinging to idealism all you want, but in the real world, as always, pragmatism will get you closer toward your goal, while idealism leaves you nowhere.
    • had3l, on 04/17/2008, -1/+14Actually, it's half a vote to the GOP candidate ;) Think about it, if you vote for Nader, the net vote difference between the Republican and the Democratic candidates is increased by 1. But if you vote for McCain, the net becomes 2, since you are not only taking away a vote a dem but also giving a vote to a...

      Oh screw this semantics *****, just digg me down.
    • italics, on 04/17/2008, -9/+3Wonderfully put. A vote for Nader is a vote for McBush. There's a difference between doing the right thing and being naive.
    • brad3378, on 04/17/2008, -3/+11A vote for Nader is a vote against the two party system.

      Nader is a bit extreme for my taste, but I respect anybody that votes for Nader's platform rather than following the sheep by basing their vote on the latest poll.
    • wishninja, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2pragmatism=selling out
      Its not about idealism it is about being able to live with my consience. If I vote for Obama and he bankrupts my children with his big government spending who am I. If I vote for McCain and he blows us all up where am I. If I vote for clinton...well I would never vote for clinton. If I vote for Wayne Root or Mike Gravel at least I was standing up for what I believe in. ***** Nader he is a troll.
    • 32Gully, on 07/13/2008, -0/+0This is the same kind of defeatist talk that detractors assaulted MLK with, Jesus with, and Socrates with, to name a few great, but misunderstood, leaders. Telling people they can't act just, work hard, be honest, and live our their innate civic rights is not not only ignorant but disgraceful--especially when such a stalwart candidate like Nader is going to be on the ballot in at least 45 states. Honestly, his record of achievement dwarfs the Corporate Candidates. Check out the Academy of American Achievement website to see why: http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/nad0pro-1

      And a vast majority of Nader supporters wouldn't vote for a Democrat if he was not an option--they'd vote for the Green Party, or perhaps another 3rd Party Candidate. Or, they'd write Nader in. Or, they'd write "None of the Above." Or, sadly, they wouldn't show up, because who wants to support a lousy candidate who won't fulfill their obligation to serve you as a citizen?

      I find it very sad how people who attack Nader say he is irrelevant, but they always seem to slam him as a so-called "spoiler." They never see how foolish their claims are: how can someone be both irrelevant and so world&history-altering as a spoiler, lol?

      Visit www.VoteNader.org to learn more about the real deal: Nader/Gonzalez '08. See you there!

      Best,
      Nigel
  • Alix7, on 04/17/2008, -14/+52Ralph Nader raped my mother, killed my father and burnt my PS3.
    • Ender008, on 04/17/2008, -3/+10He burnt all three of my PS3s...
    • MrTito, on 04/17/2008, -2/+4I hear he kicks puppies, too.
      • ThreeDee912, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2And throws them off cliffs too.
        /verybadjoke
    • wordglue, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Oh man...burning plastic PS3 smells so bad...like broken dreams.
    • DavidGX, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Burning PS3s? I would like him more if he did that.
  • notque, on 04/17/2008, -15/+9I'm voting for Nader, and I believe you should to because he is the only candidate that has reasonable policies.

    I would rather vote for someone I want and not win, than vote for someone I don't want, and win.
    • Kireblade, on 04/17/2008, -9/+11Enjoy your 8 more years in Iraq.
      • RgyaGramShad, on 08/28/2008, -2/+8you mean 100
        • vault, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2McCain would only have control over 4-8 of those 100 years, and he'd still be subject to a Democratic majority in congress.

          Something to think about...
          • toxicityj, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3hasn't the last year or two shown you that a democratic majority in congress means absolutely nothing? They sit back and let Bush walk all over them.
      • notque, on 04/17/2008, -6/+4We will get it with Hillary, Obama, or McCain so I don't see what the difference is in that respect.
        • forgiste, on 04/17/2008, -4/+3No, we won't. Pay attention okay? Obama is the only candidate (besides Nader I guess) who voted Against the Iraq war from the beginning. Hillary said she never supported it, but she voted for it so she's lying. Get your facts straight okay? Obama is your friend.
          • vault, on 04/17/2008, -1/+5Yeah actually Obama wasn't in the senate yet to vote on the Iraq War in the first place. Try again.
      • homah, on 04/17/2008, -2/+6Another ignorant ***** who is opposed to democracy. God forbid he vote for someone who isn't a Democrat or Republican.
    • Locke23, on 04/17/2008, -10/+12You sir, are the reason George Bush is in office.
      ***** you very much.
      • notque, on 04/17/2008, -9/+6The state I've voted in each time was overwhelmingly Republican, so I doubt highly that I've personally put him into the whitehouse.

        Certainly, from the effort I've given at protests, making zines, talking to people, I've done a decent amount of damage against him. If we all spent time and effort, he would be out of office right now.

        But I am an easy scapegoat, since you don't know me.
        • Locke23, on 04/17/2008, -4/+6you just don't get it do you?
        • forgiste, on 04/17/2008, -6/+5Vote for Obama! Nader will not win anyway, he never has and he never will. If you vote for Obama, he'll end the war in Iraq, the war on drugs, special interests stranglehold on Washington, etc etc. He has a chance to win and he's just as good if not better than Nader. Get your facts straight, because you're hurting our chances here.
          • notque, on 04/17/2008, -5/+4Voting for Obama is the same thing as voting for Clinton. In 1 year after he is elected, I promise you we are still in Iraq, and special interests still have a stranglehold. Stay around, and we can discuss it after it's happened. I'll be here.
        • notque, on 04/17/2008, -2/+5@Locke23

          If getting it means voting for a corporate candidate, then no. I don't get it.
          • Locke23, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3Look, I don't like the candidate out there either, personally I would've liked to see Kucinich.
            But you know, as we all do, that Nader will not win the elections, so why waste a vote on him?
            This is not the time to be a non-conformist, choose a candidate, whomever (in this case Clinton and Obama)
            and stick to him/her.. make your vote count..

            Because how I see it a "corporate candidate" is going to win anywho. might as well pick the candidate you like the best.
            Having false illusions of Nader taking the presidency are futile
        • hojo05, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2I am glad that someone has a mind and will vote for someone they believe in like me. I try to do my best to support third party candidates to rid the US of the two party system, but it is quite hard seeing that people are stuck on the status quo and nationalistic rituals. I admire Canada when it comes to politics, I really do.
      • homah, on 04/17/2008, -3/+6You ignorant *****, the people who voted for Bush are the reason Bush is in office.
        • Locke23, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1What if all those pointless votes that went to Nader's "oh-so-liberal" campaign, would've gone to Kerry's instead?
    • diggrnumber1, on 04/17/2008, -8/+2nader has the 2nd worst policies of any candidate out there. 2nd only to ron paul.
      • notque, on 04/17/2008, -4/+3My list would go

        Nader > Obama > Clinton > McCain > Paul
        • diggrnumber1, on 04/17/2008, -6/+3well, at least you're not a paultard. those guys are getting annoying.
        • MisterFreeze, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2I'd have to say Everybody > McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney
    • paistywhiteboy, on 04/17/2008, -1/+6Holy *****...It's like you understand democracy or something.
  • hollyminkowski, on 04/17/2008, -12/+3Ralph Nadir
    Dictionary... nadir-> The lowest point: the nadir of their fortunes.
  • AdHavoc, on 04/17/2008, -13/+11What is the significance of Nader getting 8% of the Michigan vote? Is that supposed to mean that 8% of people from Michigan don't understand how a two-party system works?
    • yojiffyskippy, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5I think it means the voting machine accuracy must be +/-8%
    • muckemuck, on 04/17/2008, -0/+9maybe it means 8% of the people are fed up with the BS that is the two party system in the US. They are playing us. Neither party gives a rats ass about you or me.
      • AdHavoc, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3They sure do when voting time comes around! ; D
    • DavidGX, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2What two-party system? That's nowhere in the constitution. People just THINK we have a two-party system.
  • Kireblade, on 04/17/2008, -27/+26***** Nader. Seriously.
    • brad3378, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Care to elaborate? Why do you hate Nader?
    • Phil8, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2in the butt.
    • cathpah, on 04/17/2008, -3/+2why? do you think he's hot or something?
    • 32Gully, on 07/13/2008, -0/+0Another well-read, eloquent Nader detractor speaks: and of course, he has absolutely nothing meaningful to say, lol.

      Best,
      Nigel

  • dizilbdog, on 04/17/2008, -10/+14That's awesome people should thank that guy. He' s the reason most people survive in car crashes because there is "Seatbelts" imagine what he could do for our country to make it better.
    • blackcloud333, on 04/17/2008, -2/+8Seatbelts=good president!?
      • dizilbdog, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3Yup actually doing something that actually effects every person in this country...
    • Pherdnut, on 04/17/2008, -1/+5Wow... A world without Nader. Nobody would have thought of seatbelts.
    • chassach, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2"Imagine" is the right word.
    • newms32, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Why not vote for the guy who invented airbags?
  • dafrog2, on 04/17/2008, -21/+22Go home, Ralph
    • andy314159pi, on 04/17/2008, -4/+1>Go home, Ralph
      Do you mean Ralph Nader or Ralph Wiggum?
    • 32Gully, on 07/13/2008, -0/+0Actually, dafrog2, he has gone home: to at least two Campaign stops in his home state of CT. He will also visit every single U.S. state at least once, to listen to the needs of the American people, just as he did in 2004 and 2000. All with clean money donated from individual U.S. citizens.

      But, wait, what about the 2 Corporate Candidates (Obama & McCain)? Will they do the same, with their tens of millions of dollars in bribes, behind-the-scenes-deals, and corporate sell outs? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

      So, why support a candidate who won't support you?

      Learn more at: www.VoteNader.org

      Best,
      Nigel

  • HappyScrappy, on 04/17/2008, -5/+8Don't sweat it. His figures will drop as soon as there is a viable Democratic candidate to vote for (i.e. after the Democrats make their selection).

    Besides, people talk big this far before the election just to send a message, and then often switch to one of the majors on election day because they "don't want to throw their vote away".
    • notque, on 04/17/2008, -1/+7It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it. - Eugene Debs
      • HappyScrappy, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1I'm not saying that people SHOULD switch their votes, that's why I put it in quotes.

        But regardless of your feelings or mine, this is what people do.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1A "viable Democratic candidate" ? You realize that it has to be Hillary or Obama right? It's too late for a viable Democratic candidate to enter the race.
      • homah, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1They can nominate anyone they want if there is a brokered convention. Good times.
  • mikbor, on 04/17/2008, -10/+4he is going to do it again.......what the crap
    • cathpah, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1He's never changed anything significant enough to make a difference in the vote. He won't this time either. At miost he'll win 3-4% of a states vote, but never that much in a state not won by dems anyways.
  • skellener, on 04/17/2008, -8/+22Of course, Nader is the best choice out there to put an end to corporate welfare, and mis-use of public funds. Want to put an end to corporate rule in the U.S? Want to see decency injected back into the public and private sectors? Nader is the only candidate that will do it.
    • cainpitt, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Damn Am I going to have to vote for Ralph Nader for a fourth time?
    • chassach, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2But he will not win. Nader is the candidate who will allow you to feel good about yourself while effectively voting for a continuation of American imperialism worldwide, limited response to environmental issues and corporate dominance.
      • dusanmal, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3No it is a vote against "continuation of American imperialism worldwide, limited response to environmental issues and corporate dominance." AND a vote against "Communist-like nanny-state Big Brother who wants to impose on you what you can do, eat, think,... using most of your own money to do so".
      • skellener, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1> But he will not win.

        Doesn't mean he isn't the best person for the job.
    • Stevo23, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Um, you have to like, win an election before you can accomplish any of those things.
    • bman784, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Except for the small fact that he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and is only running out of a stubborn desire to steal away votes from the actual candidates, namely the democrats. And the democratic candidate losing means four years of McCain, who is essentially the equivalent of Bush. ***** Nader. He may have some good ideas, but running is the worst thing he could possibly do for the country.
  • chrissku, on 04/17/2008, -5/+7Here's what I took from that article; Obama is winning!
  • wooFmeoWoinK, on 04/17/2008, -9/+2michigan sucks.
  • forgiste, on 04/17/2008, -12/+7Obama will not lose to McCain, no matter how much Nader interferes. Obama is all that Nader is and then some, plus he actually has a chance of winning.
    • skellener, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5> Obama will not lose to McCain....

      It's that type of thinking that will make McCain president. Don't take anything for granted.
    • KevinRWright, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3Obamas track record doesn't hold a candle to Ralph Naders. Get a clue.
    • phantasm000, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Obama isn't like Nader at all.. seriously
  • Mohdoo, on 04/17/2008, -11/+6Nader is not a Democrat. He is a saboteur.
    • Railz, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3Most of his funding comes from hard core Republicans so...It is quite possible.
      • Hangly, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Where did you get that *****?
        • hojo05, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0Nader has publicly said that he has gotten funds from Republicans because they think that Nader can ruin the chances for the Democrats to win the election. In actuality, though, the Republicans are funding the possibility that people will turn further away from the Republican party. It is quite funny actually.
    • diggdiggerid, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2?? Your comment makes about as much sense as "John McCain is not a Democrat." Um, yeah, that's why there's no D next to his name. What is your point?
    • phantasm000, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0Yeah hes an independent
  • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -5/+6Well Obama just got spanked in the Debate, that coming from someone who cant stand Hillary.

    They actually asked tough questions, questions about all the stuff you see on DIGG.
    • sallywally14, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Yeah I watched that, but that is the first time I ever saw the mediators debate with the candidate themselves. He did fine, but you could see they were in favor of Hillary.
      • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -4/+3Wow, what a surprise, I wouldnt have guessed you would say that.

        Thats what EVERY obama fan is going to say.
        It was the first time the mediators actually had any balls and demanded they answer questions and then backed it up with quotes from the candidates themselves.

        He ***** up, get over it, lets get rid of hillary so we can get down to business and expose obama for the fraud he is.
        • sallywally14, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2With a response like that,I'm guessing that you didn't watch it yet. He didn't evade answering questions, THEY debated his answers. It is not the mediator's debate.
          An example of what I'm talking about i s that five questions regarding the Rev. Wright was a little excessive. It's okay though, the situation spoke for itself.
          • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1They debated his answers?

            He's cant win the general, and that is what came out tonight.

            Yes I watched the whole thing, it was a blast.
  • andy314159pi, on 04/17/2008, -14/+9I wonder if Ralph Nader ever feels guilty about what he has done, what with helping the Republicans win in 2000.
    • NuclearWookie, on 04/17/2008, -2/+7Maybe if the Democrats had catered to their constituency that wouldn't have happened.
    • diggdiggerid, on 04/17/2008, -1/+5Maybe if the Democrats feel guilty they ran such terrible campaigns they couldn't win? That helped the Republicans too.
    • Hangly, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1I guess you should thank Pat Buchanan and the Reform Party then that the race came as close as it did.
  • IAmTheGuy, on 04/17/2008, -10/+20Don't bash Nader for "stealing" votes from Dems. In an election you are supposed to vote for the candidate that you think will do the best job. The two party system America has is beyond ridiculous because many people don't agree with all or most of the positions of either party. There are many libertarians, populists, greens and other parties. We should have at least a 4 party system where all 4 parties pick a candidate via primaries, then send those candidates to secondaries where everyone votes again. Then the two top candidates would go head to head in the final general election. So I say congrats to Nader. While I would choose Obama over him now, come general election I will do more research into both and would not be too surprised if I choose Nader over him.
    • skellener, on 04/17/2008, -4/+3> So I say congrats to Nader.

      I do to.
    • gryphon50, on 04/17/2008, -9/+3yes, in your imaginary la-la land, we would have a different system. Unfortunately here in the real world, it is a two party system and a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.
    • Mohdoo, on 04/17/2008, -9/+2I am so tired of ***** like this. A vote is ***** useless if it doesn't accomplish something. There is no difference between your vote and waving your hands in the air yelling "YAY NADER!!!". It doesn't change anything. At this point, voting for Nader will never help him. It only hurts any other Democrat. You may as well vote for Mccain.
      • homah, on 04/17/2008, -1/+4The tides can gradually turn if people show a willingness to vote for a 3rd party candidate. Is Nader going to win this election? No. But if he receives 15% of the vote instead of 5%, it will make a difference when 3rd party candidates run in the future. They will eventually be seen as "viable" (and all those other ***** buzz words the commentators love to use during debates). I am willing to vote my conscience in the hopes of bringing about change in future elections.
      • diggdiggerid, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2I'm not sure what your point is. He doesn't agree with either the Republicans or the Democrats but you are acting like he wants the Democrats to be elected.
    • AdHavoc, on 04/17/2008, -9/+2Unfortunately for you your political ideas are not a reality, so gtfo. (p.s. Move to Italy they have over 30 main parties and a ***** economy: do you think they might correlate?)
    • exomni, on 04/17/2008, -5/+1Nader just reinforces the power of ONE party. A third party should take away votes both from the republicans and democrats, Nader just weakens the democratic party, which is driving us towards a ONE party system, not a three party system.
    • Stevo23, on 04/17/2008, -4/+1Let me guess, you were a Ron Paul guy?
  • givemereplay, on 04/17/2008, -7/+2Don't blame me, I'm voting for Obama!
    • ZacharyStanton, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1If he turns out to be a crappy leader, can I blame you then?
  • pedo, on 04/17/2008, -1/+5so if clinton is the nominee, mccain wins by 9% and if obama is the nominee, obama wins by 2% (if the election was today)

    the headline should read, "WARNING: Hillary would lose to McCain by 9% in Mich"

    don't blame Nader for Hillary sucking.
    • tomtermite, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1margin of error = 6% to 8%

      so don't go calling ANYTHING just yet
  • RandoTheKing, on 04/17/2008, -14/+10I'm penciling in Ron Paul.
    • KevinRWright, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3He's going to win the PA primary. People are ignoring the fact that he has quietly been accumulating delegates to go to the convention this summer, and will be able to make a nice stir in the party.

      His supporters aren't deluded and believing he can "win" in any conventional sense, but there is a misconception that the republican party is united right now. The GOP is just as torn as the democratic party right now, they are just better at hiding it. Just wait till the convention comes around and some of this dirty laundry gets aired.
    • thailand1972, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Put down that pencil and get back to work.
  • chriskzoo, on 04/17/2008, -3/+20GO RALPH GO!
    Funny, everybody wants a third party - UNLESS they steal votes from their candidate.
    • exomni, on 04/17/2008, -4/+2Nader isn't a third party. He only weakens the Democratic party, which in turn strengthens the Republican party, which means Nader drives us closer to a ONE party system than a three party system.

      If Ron Paul were to start a libertarian-esque party, that would take the republican paul votes and the libertarian democrat votes, then he'd be a legitimate third party and might actually make some progress towards a three party system.
    • enakra, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Thank god somebody said it. Heres a thought... VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE. Why must we always play the game?
  • inbuninbu, on 04/17/2008, -2/+26All this naysaying about Nader is such crap. I thought we lived in a Democracy. And I'm not allowed to vote for who I actually want?

    The problem of liberal third party candidates taking away votes from the Democrats has a simple, fair, and elegant solution. Instant-runoff voting. You list what candidates you want in order of preference. If no candidate wins with a majority of first-choices, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. Repeat.

    Every time people try to enact voting reform to this type of system the Democratic party opposes it. The Democrats are corrupt too, they just don't flaunt it as much as the Republicans.

    Maintaining a two-party system like this is anti-democratic. It is a dual monopoly. If the democrats are too far right for my taste, I have not choice but to vote for them anyway because of the alternative. This lets both parties do whatever they want and still keep most of their base.
    • homah, on 04/17/2008, -1/+5You win this thread. Ignore the fact that you are going to get -20 diggs. You win.
    • MaximusD, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Another, slightly more simple way to do it is that you are allowed to vote once for as many different candidates as you wish. You could vote for all the candidates, but it would be pointless. So a Nader fan who didn't want to give McCain an edge could vote for Nader and Obama. But instant runoff is pretty awesome too. I like both systems, and both are by far superior to the one we have now.
    • cainpitt, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5Totally agree with you. I've been saying this for 12 years. Actually, 8 years. No one made a big deal when Raplh ran against Clinton in '96. I've voted for Nader in 3 presidential elections. I feel old.
    • spankalee, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4Thank you very much for bringing this up. I'm digging everyone above you down so that people can see this.

      Instant Runoff Voting is the single most important political issue to me. Without it, everything else is harder to fix because we're stuck with a broken democracy and campaigns that are treated like a sporting event, not as a way to make collective decisions about our future.

      Everyone check out fairvote.org to learn more about IRV.
    • r00fus, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2OMG... finally someone gets it.
      Though I prefer Condorcet to IRV, we need to change the one-man one-vote ***** NOW.
  • Landlocked, on 04/17/2008, -1/+13Why does this need a "warning"? Aren't people free to choose who they want to vote for? This is a democracy, right?
  • heilmikaal, on 04/17/2008, -0/+13Nader is a true American hero fighting for the working class and against giant corporations and their control over Washington. He's the only candidate with whom I am in nearly complete agreement with.
    • KevinRWright, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3I'm with you, but we both will be buried. Digg is going through it's Obama phase right now.
  • saturnx8, on 04/17/2008, -7/+2good, I hope he steals votes from obama, I can't stand anyone running especially 50% honkey 100% donkey boy ...
  • AaronS2000, on 04/17/2008, -1/+5Still isn't enough. Ron P. was great at 10% in Iowa, but this just isn't enough. I like to hear about more independen(ce)ts though.
  • rahamm, on 04/17/2008, -3/+3Ha good like getting on the ballot! You will be in courts for years trying to get ballot excess. Two party system foils your plan again Ralph Nader.
    • NuclearWookie, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3access, not excess.
    • rahamm, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1hahahahaha you are right once again
    • 32Gully, on 07/13/2008, -0/+0Rahamm, since you don't support free speech under the guidelines of the Constitution, you should remove your own comment above.

      This is the kind of paltry behavior you want to endorse?
      http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=3771

      Join the Campaign that works hard for you and values free speech: www.VoteNader.org. If you despise your American right of free speech, then support Obama/McCain for pro-FISA, wire-tapping action.

      Best,
      Nigel

  • Railz, on 04/17/2008, -1/+4We need a Neo-Con Party to split off from the GOP so that a more lib demo party can split. 4 parties would be fun :D
    • nationalist, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1what about canada 93? or italy 06?
  • perogi21, on 04/17/2008, -6/+4Doesn't this moron realize that his attempts at becoming President are financially backed by the Republicans???
  • xnightxxflowerx, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4I live in Michigan and am registered. These numbers are basically Lame. The only reason those numbers are like that is because who ever makes the decisions here screwed up our primary and thus the Democrats haven't campaigned here and the people haven't really had the chance to get involved yet unless they like to stay politically informed (like me! (: ). I am for Obama all the way and once he gets the Dem. nomination I will be out here to campaign for him. And I think its safe to say once Clinton gets the reality check that she can't get the nom. and Obama is the nominee then he'll probably be coming here to Michigan and to Florida first thing to campaign like he has in the rest of the states.

    Michigan is one of the most economically ***** states in the US. Seriously just last Sept. our government here was on the verge of Shutting Down, like as in everything run by the government was going to cease until they could agree on the state budgeting crisis. We have one of the highest unemployment rates. and well we're just all together ***** up. And the stupid people running ***** ***** up the primary so nobody here has got to hear directly from the candidates(I believe Obama & Clinton agreed to not campaign in MI or FL because of the rules violation) and thus those numbers are what they are but they aren't really accurate considering the situation.
  • NuclearWookie, on 04/17/2008, -1/+17To all of you people in the "***** Nader" category: Why are you so pissed off about this? The Democrats, upon gaining Congress in 2006, immediately took impeachment off the table and have refused to cease funding for the war in Iraq. Why do they have your loyalty? I can understand the current infatuation with Obama, but don't forget he has also helped Bush accomplish his goals.
    • zephyear, on 04/17/2008, -4/+1they don't all have my loyalty, i just agree with them a lot more than the republicans.

      and if nader ruins this again by siphoning away votes from the democrat, i will kill him.

      this is why i hate 3rd parties like the greens, they're views are very liberal so why don't they just endorse the dem? all it does is increase the probibility of us going through 4 more years of *****.

      i have no problem with 3rd parties like the libertarian, because they're views differ from both the GOP and the dem.
      • NuclearWookie, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3The Greens do differ from the Democrats. They are actually liberal. If you think Obama or HRC will have the troops out of Iraq by 2012, you are delusional.
        • exomni, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2That's not his point. The Greens are never going to take away votes from the Republican party. We need a party (like the libertarian party) that takes away votes from both the Democrats AND the Republicans. If we have parties that only take away votes from the Democratic party, that just weakens the Democratic party, which is driving us closer to a ONE party system, not a three party system.
          • NuclearWookie, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1We are basically in a one party system already. Name me five ways the Democrats differ from the Republicans. And make it actions and not not promises. And Libertarians mostly sap votes from the GOP.
          • zephyear, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1favor federal funding of stem cell research
            pro-choice instead of pro-life
            for gay marriage
            for clean energy, alternative fuel sources
            favor not giving the rich tax breaks


            there, five
          • NuclearWookie, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1zephyear, for some reason, I cannot reply to your comment. Here goes:

            Funding or not funding stem cell research is by no means completely determined by party. Some Democrats have voted against it and some Republicans have voted for it. Same for abortion, gay marriage, and tax breaks. And the Democrats' stance on the only viable source of clean energy (biofuels DO NOT COUNT) is pathetic due to their opposition to nuclear.

            I said I wanted actions, not promises or platitudes. Show me bills that support the above that the majority of Democratic congresscritters have voted for.
      • shirov, on 10/04/2008, -0/+0Because the Dems are no longer liberal...
  • CodeCobalt, on 04/17/2008, -2/+5Ralph Nader does make sense on a lot of issues, on the other hand he makes absolutely none on so many more. I think he would be a terrible president, but he does deserve some leadership position for health and the environment.
  • NuclearWookie, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Also, since I live in California now and my vote doesn't matter anyway, he (or the most viable third-party candidate) will be getting my vote. This is despite the fact that I think he's a despicable communist. The two-party system must fall.
  • kolinkoolface2, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3yea i am from michigan and still everyone here thinks the man is a joke. But then again our state is so ***** up right now it wouldn't surprise me if he won. We got ***** by engler and ***** by grandholm. Why