Since we're talking - What VP would best counter the Nader effect?

Maybe Kerry doesn't give a damn about Nader, because none of the VP choices I've heard about address the issue.

That's both good and bad.

In a way, Nader needs to be ignored. He thrives on attention. But, in another way, Nader's potential damage needs to be controlled in advance.

Oh the 5 names I've heard - Clark,Edwards,Gephardt,Graham, or Vilsack, none play to the far left that would be attracted by Nader.

If not with a VP choice, then how does Kerry address Nader?

should understand that this time around, a lot more is at stake.

and if they still think there is no difference between bush and kerry, then any choice Kerry makes for VP wont change their votes.

Never assume you have the sale until you close the sale.

I think Kerry should make some token outreach to the Green/Nader crowd.

Sort of saying, "Let's put 2000 behind us, we need you on our side, I'll look out for you."

Will adressing the voters that might go for Nader, rather than addressing Nader himself, do it?

Or does Nader have to be taken down a peg?

the more important it is to think about ones vote....

The more the party moves rightward the more people Nader picks up....while the endless ranks of cheerleaders here at DU seem not to care about things like principles and policy, seeking only a democratic victory at the polls, there are many folks who see that such a victory may make no difference to the endless list of things that are so wrong with our nation. Those people believe Nader to be nothing less than an old fashioned democrat, one that is in very short supply these days.

He didn't vote for the war or support it, and he has shown some desire to change America (not just change the administration from a neo-con one to a democrat one).

If Clark isn't good enough for them, chances are whatever candidate they wanted would have done the democratic ticket more harm than good.

would be Russ Fiengold. Liberal populist record, but moderate on issues like gun control. IMO, that's the sort of candidate I prefer. He would definetely appeal to Naderites, but at the same time I think he'd be great in the midwest as well.

But, I'd say we need someone like him in the senate and he's locked in a reelection battle right now (though I'm pretty sure he'll win).

Of those five names listed above, I think Clark could appeal to Naderites. He opposed the war, and is pretty liberal on other issues. That too, he was endorsed by Michael Moore.

Edwards stance on trade may appeal to some Naderites.

Your choice really... all Kerry can afford to do to appeal to Nader voters is basically say he's not Bush and would be a hell of a lot more progressive... if he does anything overt then he can be hammered as a "crazy liberal" by the GOP he needs to avoid that label... if its a choice between moderate voters and liberals he would be stupid to concentrate on the liberal voters, Kerry's record should satisfy most liberals, selecting a more liberal running-mate would be political suicide...

You have on of the most liberal US senators at the top of the ticket, THE LAST THING YOU NEED IS AN EVEN MORE LIBERAL VP!

there are a lot more progressives than the moderate swing vote--- a margin estimated as high as 10:1.

Trouble is, you have to give them a ltlle more than lip service to get them to turn out and vote.

I think Kerry could do this, but the DLC's myopic focus on the tiny fractional swing vote could ultimately prove fatal as they keep watering down the message.

Self-identified liberals comprise only 20% of the electorate. There are at least twice as many self-identified moderates than there are self-identified liberals. Just look at the 2000 exit polls if you disagree.

The overwhelming majority of self-identified liberals will end up voting for Kerry, just like the overwhelming majority voted for Gore in 2000. The votes that tend to be up for grabs in an election are the votes of people are who are not ideologues.

It was the Limbaughs and the like who mischaracterised "Liberals" as ideologues.. Nice to see Dolstein emulating Limbaugh....oops your neocon is showing.

His support for the WTO/NAFTA hardly make him the most liberal Senator. The thinking you're expressing here is exactly why Nader got enough votes to hand Bush the election.

"if he does anything overt...." You mean like stating a position in opposition to Bush? You mean like HAVING or standing on principles? You mean like apologising for those votes in complicity with Bush policies? You mean like actually opposing Bush?

Moderates are OK but Liberals are anathema.......what a load.
Strategies seem to focus on those who are leaning towards voting Bush, on about 10% of the vote.....maybe 20%. Meanwhile there are those 50% or so who do not vote because they perceive polticians to be doing exactly what you advocate....the key to this or any national election lies within the huge majority of the electorate who are just to fed up and alienated to vote...they need to be energised into action...but that would entail actually having a candidate with real agendas , not the same damn oatmeal packaged differently.

... for VP.

"I think Edwards would give him the least vetting problem. He's known. His primary liability is that he could outshine Kerry on the stump. The one who wouldn't do that and is a real known quantity would be Gephardt. And the other one would be for Florida purposes, Graham. They all want it. "

It's uncited, from the edwards blog.

Isn't it time our party did something smart?

You can't be serious. A nut like Kucinich would instantly doom our ticket to a landslide defeat.

Give me Dean or Kucinich over these sellout Bush appeasers any day. There's a lot of voters out there who agree with the John Mellencamp lyric "You gotta stand for something, or you'll fall for anything".

Have you seen Bush's new ad? He NAILS Kerry for waffling, and let's face it, it's the truth. And Kerry's not going to kill that image by adding another gutless sellout coward DLC neocon shill to the ticket. Bring on a VP with some balls.

well, one of you is...hint; it aint him.

the nominee, Nadir wouldn't have run? If Dean had been?

Trust me, Ralph would've found some specious, BS justification for his run.

He's running to hand the election to *.

Again.

Clark on war.

Now when Nader does his talks on Iraq, he uses Clarks arguments against the war, & NAMES him.

Clark is the most liberal of the group, but because of his military career, he appeals to Indies & disgruntled Repubs.

He is a WIN-WIN!

and, while I will vote for Kerry no matter who he picks, the only one that I would be really happy about is Clark.

I may not represent the typical Nader voter, but what I most wanted to see was someone with a backbone, standing up strongly and proudly for traditional Democratic values. This is what I see in Clark, and I think that helps Kerry to do the same thing.

Gore turned me off by seeming to try to minimize the fundamental differences between him and Bush. At least that's how he came accross to me in the campaign. Choosing Lieberman as a running mate didn't help.

-"He put his life on the line for civil rights and then took his conscience to Washington" - so says his campaign web site http://www.johnlewisforcongress.com/
the Nader factor can be diffused by choosing someone out of the box - someone with a conscience like Lewis. This would be so good for this country - a southerner - a civil rights leader - a person of color
It is time to shake things up a bit - all the other "guys" would find homes in the cabinet - We need the diversity in the ticket!

Congressman John Lewis would not only give the Kerry ticket the credibility it needs with liberals, but would increase turnout enough on the left that Kerry won't need to pander to moderate swing voters so much.

Kucinich was Nader's candidate in the primary and Nader might drop out with DK on the ticket. Durbin has a great liberal record. Edwards is acceptable and has the same background as a trial lawyer like Nader. Kerry really should pick someone who opposed the war and pledge not to reinstate the draft if he doesn't want to lose 5% or more to Nader.

then I think Howard Dean would be considered.

and Greens never supported Dean for the same reason. Dean wouldn't do anything to stop Nader.

Because he said he would stay out if Dean were the nominee.

Maybe Nader saw Dean as a catalyst of change within the Democratic Party, or maybe Nader saw a Dean candidacy as a means to whatever ends he has been aiming towards, such as the emergence of a viable third party.

Regardless, Nader said he would stay out if Dean were the nominee, and only entered when it was clear that Dean would not win the nomintaion.

He said it about Kucinich a number of times, and even appeared at some of the same events Kucinich did.

I'm disappointed in Nader this year-- if he wanted to influence the party to go more in his direction, he should have been out stumping for Kucinich before the primaries. He's worked with Dennis before (back when Dennis was mayor of Cleveland), and the two are frienly. But Ralph barely even lifted a finger during the primary season to help Dennis out.

He is not attempting to work for the democrats he is attempting to show his scorn for them......

If you are disappointed in Nader this year you should have been disappointed in him four years ago as well..nothing has changed. Then as now Nader and his supporters were horrified and angered at the rightward turn of the Democratic Party and , after the events of 9/11 made the democrats into nothing more than a rubber stamp for right wing policies and agendas, were even more angry.

Live in your fools paradise all you want, Kerry and the democrats abet and thrive in a corrupt system, will do little to alter the path of american foreign and domestic policies and will allow corporate america to control policy, make enormous profit at the very great expense of the rest of the world and we will continue to slide down the steep spiral here at home.

Nader said he would drop out if Kucinich were the nominee, not Dean. There's a big difference.

that it was true. I seriously remember Nader saying that he would stay out if Dean ran...

Then I tried to search it out on the Internet. I ran across a Clark site that quoted Nader saying the same thing I thought he said on Meet The Press back on 2/22/04.

I checked the transcript, but Dean was never mentioned.

So far, I haven't been able to find my source. 100% Dead End.

Any Deaniacs out there with an answer?

If I'm wrong, I'll give myself a time out or something. :)

him and nader have known each other for years and kerry has talked to him throughout this campaign and he has people on his campaigning keeping in touch with nader also. kerry himself is telling why people should vote for him over nader and isn't ignoring nader.

Or are you just very hopeful?

Can you demonstrate some example of how Kerry is handling this?

he said he has talked to nader and his campaign is keeping in touch with nader in other ways. nader also really likes kerry , probably because of the work they use to do together and kerry's praising of nader when he was a young man which is on public record. nader didn't like gore for some reason. but if you remember, nader also wasn't very anti clinton as much as he was anti gore and this was also because clinton had people in his administration keep in touch with nader. nader's biggest complaint about gore seemed to be that gore ignored him.

so kerry is acknowledging the nader factor and this in itself is good as he knows he has to deal with it.

He was against the war, and continues to be against the war.

He cares deeply about our troops though obviously, since he is one of them.

Are you talking about the 6% votes that Nader has gotten in the polls? Kerry better not be choosing a V.P. to appeal to 6% of the democratic population! I hope he's choosing based on qualifications and appeal to the 18 battleground states that are going to decide this election (which means appealing to the independent vote in 18 states).

I don't mean to say that Kerry should pick his VP on the sole basis of neutering Nader.

I'm just curious what folks think about Nader and since there were so many VP threads, I was trying to dovetail the two issues, that's all. :)

In most of the swing states we're only talking about a margin of 6% or less. There aren't that many middle of the road swing voters out there who we can be sure will vote. Why is it better to sell out as a party to get the 6% of uninvolved swing voters instead of staying liberal and picking up the 6% of liberal Nader voters and increasing turnout among the base?

He votes with the Constitution every time.

Generally, the folks in the middle are frightened by the folks on the left. By definition, MOR moderates avoid extreme opinions and politics.

The traditional way to deal with that has been to stand with your base on the left, and play to the middle to diminish their fears.

Subtly working with your more extreme elements of the far left, hoping that their highly evolved sense of partisanship will keep them aligned against the opposition, has usually

In recent years, two things have made this traditional approach difficult:

1) The Dem party has moved to the center, some say the center/right.
2) Ralph Nader

Moving to the center or to the right mean that the party no longer stands with base on the left. Therefore, playing to the middle from the middle makes the left feel ignored.

Taking advantage of this rift, enter Ralph Nader, saying that the Dems have become non different from the Repukes. Not entirely true, but difficult to fight because the Dems have situated themselves a bit to the right, correct?

So this is why the left feels ignored (because they are, a little) and the center feels that they shouldn't have to play to the left (because traditionally the roles have bee reversed)

An interesting trend is starting to emerge from the latest polls: Nader is actually living up to his own assurances, and appears to be drawing as many voters from dissatisfied Shrub supporters as from Kerry. Now it's possible that some Freeper-type respondents are playing fast and loose with pollsters, but this would very likely be offset by the number of realist Naderites who will nonetheless hold their noses and vote Kerry come November, correctly reasoning that 4 more years of Shrub will set this country back so far that we'll never recover momentum toward a better future. Forget social security reform or cleaner air. We won't have basic civil liberties or even a modicum of social justice left if this gang gets to run the hood for another turn.

I'm one of many people I know who supported Nader in 2000, though I voted for Gore when the race shaped up as tight (even though I live in a solid Blue state). Almost every former Naderite I know is a) pissed at Ralph and b) planning to vote for Kerry. Unless this is a covert strategy worked up between the Nader and Kerry camps, Ralph is ruining his own legacy with this run. I swear, if he costs Kerry this election and we get "four more wars" in January , , , , well, I don't know what I'll do, but I won't have any more friends who voted for Nader, that's for sure. So I'm hoping he's crazy like a fox, and given the recent polls, maybe he is. I'm certainly surprised to see those numbers. Now if Ralph would just come out against the assault rifle ban!

Realcountrymusic

Of course, if the Nader people were already on board, we wouldn't have to pander to the center, which is the absurdity of our situation.

If the most liberal candidate nominated for president by the Democratic Party EVER isn't enough for these clowns, I'm not certain what is. Another leftist on the ticket would only alienate centrists while getting us nothing in return.

where Kerry isn't so liberal. Kerry might be the most liberal in regard to social morality issues but I only wish he would present the kind of economic agenda that FDR pushed.

Really, the VP can make a difference with how much liberals and some other groups are willing to get involved with this election.

But he wouldn't really do much else for Kerry. Love the guy, but don't think he would make a good VP for a number of reasons.

Not that I wouldn't want him on the ticket, but I honestly don't think he'd take the job. I think he really enjoys being in Congress, and co-leading the Congressional Progressive Caucus. IMHO, him being VP would practically be a demotion.

Now, when the new Democratic majority takes control of the House in January 2005, he'd make an EXCELLENT Speaker, mind you....;)