If this is true, I am interested to see the reaction of the democrat stooges who clog up the board with predictions of massive landslides and bush being chased out of town by a crowd of torch bearing pitch fork waving peasants. it is not official, but still would spice things up a bit.

Nader to jump in presidential race (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112049,00.html)

He's irrelevant.
He's lost his credibility.
He's not even running as green.
He won't have enough backing to get on most state ballots.
He's lucky if he takes 1% of the vote.
He's got an ego problem.

The dems aren't worried about this in the slightest although the gop is having wet dreams over it. Little do they know.

LMAO

Dop

LOL, ya dop, thats why you and NEM were using nader not running as one of the reason Kerry will crush Bush, now you change your tune. what a two faced joker.

Fox got a true story? Amazing, but I don't think Naders going to have the same effect as he did last time.

Still, I can't believe he's doing this again when he realizes the effects of him campaigning. It happened last election and he ended up giving it to Bush. Nader is a retard.

No he didn't the Supreme court, Jeb bush and Kathleen Harris gave Bush the election. Learn the truth.
http://www.unprecedented.org/

In 2000 there were 7 states where nader was not on the ballot, ALL 7 STATES WENT TO BUSH.

Nader is going to push the democrats left. I hope he runs. He already has had an effect in the quality of candidates that are running this year.

OK Trav you got me on a technicality but if you read my previous posts where I say "there will be no nader this time around" and think of it in the context of the post -- you'll see I mean there will be no 'nader effect' not 'no nader'.

I expected him to run -- he's financed by the gop and it's his job to take votes away from the dems. No one with an IQ above 3 ever votes for him with expectations of winning the WH.

When he ran in '00, he had a deal with his constituency, that in any state where his votes would make a difference, they should vote for gore or bush and not him. He reneged on that deal at the last minute. I wouldn't want to be him in a future life.

So waste your time cheering on nader while the dems use their time to defeat the guy in the WH.

Dop

technicality my eye

1: he hasn't said he will enter the race yet.

2: And, if he does, he will NOT have the impact he lhad in 2000, for several reasons.

3: He will run as an independent, not as the Green Party candidate, and to get on the ballots of all the states, he will need X number of signatures in each state. He won't get them this time.

4: Most of the voters that voted for him last time were "democrat leaning" voters and they will NOT make the same mistake again because of what happened.

See this web site.

http://repentantnadervoter.com/

5: The Dems are already talking to him , in closed sessions, about not running.

So, for all intents and purposes, Nader is a non entity in this year's election, whether he runs, or not.

And, we will find out Sunday. My guess is that he will NOT run.

Are these or are these not your words NEM?


THREAD NAME: More reasons why the Republicans are running SCARED, and will PROBABLY Lose.

1: There is NO Nader factor this time. In 2000 the Green party candidate, Ralph Nader took a lot of votes away from Al Gore, in several states, including Florida.

Those votes cost Gore a lot of electoral votes that would have, easily, given him a win over Bush.

This time: NO NADER.

Originally posted by Travh20
Are these or are these not your words NEM?


THREAD NAME: More reasons why the Republicans are running SCARED, and will PROBABLY Lose.

1: There is NO Nader factor this time. In 2000 the Green party candidate, Ralph Nader took a lot of votes away from Al Gore, in several states, including Florida.

Those votes cost Gore a lot of electoral votes that would have, easily, given him a win over Bush.

This time: NO NADER.

Trav, I really don't want to respond to you, lmainly cause of your foul mouth...but seeing as you asked...

Read my post. In item 1 I said there is NO Nader factor. See the key word..."FACTOR"

And that is to mean that if he runs, or not, he will NOT be a factor this time....

Most of those that voted for him last time will not. In fact, there are web sites from former Nader voters who now vow not to vote for him and are even writing him not to run.

So, you can play with all the words you want, wheter it is NO NADER or NO NADER FACTOR....in either case, it will have little, or no effect.

No wait, I take that back..it WILL have an effect....

Assuming that the voter turnout is about the same as in 2000, the Dems will probably pick up about 2 million more votes than they had last time, maybe more, because Nader got 2.7 million.

Now, add that to the increased number of Dems voting...the TRUE count in Florida this time...and Bush is on his way out...and in a vote that may not even be close.

Those are the FACTS.

yes, you are nothing but facts NEM, and FACTORS, LOL

I didnt know that an independant candidate could win the WH. I thought it was a two party system. Heh, learn sumthin old every day!