Which Presidential candidate should I support? Kerry or Nader?

Should I endorse Kerry or Nader for the 2004 Presidential elections?

Should I campaign for Kerry,the goal of which being to get Bush out of the Whitehouse, or should I campaign for Nader, who is by far the worthiest candidate, even though he'd never win in a million years? So, basically, I have the choice between taking the "anyone-but-Bush" ticket, or I can support the canditate whose political positions I agree with the most, even though votes for him might even help the Republicans, or, as I fondly call them, Satan's Maidservants. Help!

peaceandlove,
xylophone

 

Kerry. Although Nader is way better, he'll never win. A third party never has won, therefor a vote against Kerry is a vote for Bush. understand?

 

Not necessarily...a vote not for Bush or Kerry is a vote that you can be proud of. You shouldn't ask others who to vote for. I am voting for Nader, because even though I know he will never win, I refuse to endorse the others, who I wouldn't want in the White house in a million years...A vote for Nader is NOT a vote for Bush.

Holly

 

People need to realize that the 3rd parties aren't going anywhere! We need party change! I personally support the Libertarians (best party ever), but everyone needs to think seriously about not wasting their votes on Kerry just because he's running against Bush!

Just imagine when Kerry loses. Everyone who sold out and voted Democrat agian just to "win back the white house" will feel soooo badly. Nader could have won federal funding again, but people insisted on wasting their votes on Kerry; so now the Greens have to suffer for many years to come!

FYI- Kerry did support the war, and would have voted to go to war even if he knew they weren't going to find any WMD's!
Proof- http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5915798

more Proof- http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv

 

Although I do believe Nader is the best candidate, I'd rather vote for Kerry and get Bush out of the White House. As much as I support those who vote for Nader, a 3rd party vote is pretty much a waste(as sad as that is) because a 3rd party candidate will not(any time soon) win a majority vote.

 

We'll first of all, no offese, but your 15... support whoever you like better. Even if you were old enough to vote, California is solid for Kerry anyway so I'd tell you to vote for who you like best.

I Don't like Nader, but I do agree with him that 3rd parties need more of a say. Although, Nader is an Independant this year, so voting for him wouldn't help the green party (or any party) get legitimized.

What Nader needs to do is put his pride aside and pull out of battleground states and throw his support behind kerry there. He could still run in solid states, and get his voice heard. I just want him to stay out of Ohio and Florida.

 

Vote Kucinich 2008

 

All deez dumb ass shorthair blue suit pigz.
all pigzzyz will put Uh in jail 4 jewzuz.

vote and show Yuhr HAIR flytin in their piggy faces

 

I agree..

In Bush's next term, he will select 2 or more supreme court justices. That alone should be enough of a reason to vote for Kerry.

Bush has trashed the environment, walked away from the nuclear test ban treaty, taken away our civil liberties, given billions of our tax dollars to billionairs, started a war with a country that was no threat to us, cut all funding for alternative energy and stole the election of 2000.

There are probably more reasons but I have work to do.

 

ARE YOU IN A BATTLEGROUND STATE?


The answer to that question should be the determining factor for anyone who wants to vote 3rd party but also wants "anyone but Bush"

If you are in a swing state, vote Kerry. If your state is already decided for one or the other, vote 3rd party.

You are in CA so vote Nader. I am in FL. So I am voting for Nader!

Vote Pairing
If you are in a battleground state but wish you could afford to vote 3rd party read this. Find someone that would also like to vote 3rd party but is going to vote Republican. Both of you get absentee ballots and fill them out together with the agreement that neither of you are going to vote for either Bush or Kerry. End result: Kerry and Bush lose one vote apiece, same end result as if you had both voted 2 party. BUT 2 3rd party candidates also recieved votes which is a very good thing.

 

Keowyn I'm glad somebody agrees with me, but your in FL which is in play this elections, and as of right now is swinging in Kerrys favor, unless you were talking about that paring thing, then ignore.

check this out:
http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html

 

Fifteen and not into orgies, si, or meth? Jesus. Props to you.

Probably not a constructive anti-fascist position, however appealing. We'll not get a voting method that allows a Nader vote to be anything but destructive for awhile... so 'till then, I'd say go Kerry.

 

Thanks, everyone, for your help!

peaceandlove,
xylophone

 

razorface - that just isn't true. There are several situarions in which a vote for Nader IS NOT a vote for bush.


1. Staunch Republican states. There isn't a snowballs chance in hell of Kerry winning Texas. If you happen to be one of the 1/2 dozen liberals in Texas, your vote for Kerry will mean nothing. However, a vote for Nader would mean something.

2. Staunch Democrat states. Kerry will win New York. It isn't in doubt. If you live in New York, and you, all your friends, and all their friends voted Green, Kerry will still win the state by a landslide. But Nader will appreciate your votes.

3. Vote pairing. If you can get a Conservative to join you in voting 3rd party in ANY state, DO IT! Your votes would have canceled each others out, so if you both vote 3rd party there is no change in the election. But those 3rd party candidates will certainly appreciate the votes.

Us American citizens need to stop thinking like sheep. The only reason we have a 2 party system is because American voters make it that way. We desperately need 3rd party candidates to break open our political system.

 

Well, I support Nader, and your feelings/reasons might not be similar to mine, but here is why I won't be supporting Kerry.

John Kerry and I do not click on very many issues, and on key topics such as the war in Iraq, of which is I was against from the very beginning, we do not agree and I do not see why I should be supporting him. Sure, he isn't Bush, but does that necessarily mean he's any better?

What the people over at the Nader camp want is change. Real change. The political system in our country right now is very corrupt and what we wish to do is change it. But let me ask you this, how are we to do that if we sell out and choose Kerry just because some democrats are telling us to? The Kerry campaign's basic message is that of removing George W. Bush from the White House. However, we realize this is not going to solve everything. And the Nader campaign isn't based on that.

The way I see it, voting Kerry is just going to swap one jerk in the White House for another. While it's true that Kerry does hold several differences from Bush, those things don't matter in the long run. Because Kerry isn't going to bring about the change that we seek in this country.

Too many times, as a Nader supporter, I've been told that I would be "wasting my vote" (though I am not of the legal age to do so) and that Nader's candidacy is completely pointless. But the truth is, it isn't. I'm very dissatisfied with the way this country functions right now, and the only candidate who I think sincerely believes in changing it is Ralph Nader. He might not have all the experience of John Kerry, but what he is is a citizen, and I honestly believe he cares more about the people and consumers of our country than Kerry does. Why? Because that's whom he's been fighting for all his life. John Kerry comes from a very wealthy background, as does Bush, while Nader is the son of two Lebanese immigrants. Still, his father taught him the value of participating in government and democracy.

Nader may not know much about running a country, but neither did Bush when he first entered office. A president is not the sole ruler of a country, and by surrounding himself with the right people, Nader could fair just as well as Bush or Kerry ever could, as idealistic as that may sound.

Some may claim that voting for Kerry is doing what the Nader campaign wishes by removing Bush from office. But they're actually accomplishing the opposite of that. By not choosing Nader when you truly believe in his candidacy, you are squashing his message and not allowing a large group of people's voices to be heard, and therefore the change that we seek will never arrive.

If everyone who wimped out and voted democrat either in the past election or this current one actually spoke out and supported Nader instead, I'm sure there would be a much greater outcome. Even if that didn't mean Nader became president, it would be clear to the people in Washington and others that we mean business and we'll be fighting until the end. That there is a large group of citizens out there who demand they have a say. Isn't that what this "hippie" movement was largely based on? The times and events have changed but the message hasn't.

By voting for a candidate only because he has a much greater chance of removing Bush from office when in actuality you would much rather support a different candidate, you are perpetuating a two party system that, in essence, is not democratic--because you're not working to get the candidate who you want in office. But, by supporting Nader or anyone you actually believe in for that matter, you are exercising your right as an American citizen to have a true say in your government--something this country truly needs right now. Isn't that what our nation was founded on?


Okay, that was ALOT longer than I meant for it to be, but I really, REALLY needed to say that. It probably sounded really cheesy, too. Oh well.

 

www.kucinich.us seriousily check this guy out...he seems to have a true hippy spirt
look at his platforms that interest you

i used to love nader till i found out bout this guy

 

I don't really like Kucinich. He's a staunch Catholic (no offense to Catholics), so he's been voting pro-life since he's been in Congress. Not something that I want in a president.

In the democratic primaries, though, I supported Howard Dean.

 

ur not looking for a strict catholic...or your not looking for someone who is por choice?

 

Ah, did I say pro-choice? I guess I did. My mistake :& I meant pro-life. And yeah, I wouldn't really support a candidate who was pro-LIFE, lol. Abortion/women's rights is a very big issue to me. I do agree with Kucinich on alot of things though, but other candidates have all that, AND they're pro-choice.

Don't quote me on that, though. I read somewhere that Kucinich votes pro-life, but I'm not totally sure about that. If he does NOT, then forget my arguement.

 

kucinich-
I support Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose, and will select Supreme Court justices who affirm this Constitutional right.
I've had a journey on this issue a year ago, before I became a candidate for President, that caused me to break from a voting record that had not been pro-choice. After hearing from many women in my own life, and from women and men in my community and across the country, I began a more intensive dialogue on the issue. A lot of women opened their hearts to me. That dialogue led me to wholeheartedly expand my views and support a woman's right over her body.

I have come to believe that it's not simply about the right to choose, but about a woman's role in society as being free and having agency and having the ability to make her own decisions; that a woman can't be free unless she has this right.

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is one of the most serious decisions a woman might make. It is deeply personal. In our society, all women and all men have a right to make difficult moral decisions and make personal choices. But women will not be equal to men if this constitutionally protected right is denied.

I want to work to make abortions less necessary, which means sex education and birth control. I want to work to make sure that, when life is brought forward, we have prenatal care and postnatal care and child care and universal health care and a living wage. And because I know that the right to choose is under attack -- as President, I would only support someone for the Supreme Court if he or she agrees to uphold Roe v. Wade.