It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does Nader guarantee a Bush Jr. victory?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Concerning the election in 2004 for President of the U.S. --

It seems that the 3rd party candidate has eroded one of the campaigns of one of the two major parties' candidates that were running, and turning the election, for over 10 years now.

1992 -- Bush Sr. vs. Clinton vs. Perot

Perot was conservative enough to drain away some of Bush Sr.'s votes. Clinton wins.

1996 -- Clinton vs. Dole vs. Perot

Again, Perot was conservative enough to drain away some of Dole's votes. Clinton wins again.

2000 -- Bush Jr. vs. Gore vs. Nader

Nader was liberal enough to drain away some of Gore's votes. It's the same thing that Perot did to the Republican candidates earlier, but in reverse this time. Bush Jr. wins.

2004 -- Bush Jr. vs. Kerry vs. Nader

Given past history, it seems that Nader will again be liberal enough to drain votes, this time from Kerry. Bush Jr. wins again.

You really want to help a Republican or Democratic candidate win the U.S. Presidency? Then get a 3rd Party candidate out there who leans in the same direction as your opponent. It seems to work every time!


In a simliar vein, as to the debates over the economy that I've noticed around here... the President is rarely responsible for anything that effects the economy; that's usually the fault of Congress. And sometimes it's just the fault of fate and its timing. I believe that the major job loss of 1999-2001 occured because of (1) the collapse of the many Internet based companies that had bad business models (the so-called "dot-com" bubble); and (2) September 11, 2001. Conclusion: the recession was neither the fault of Clinton or Bush Jr.




posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I don't know. At the rate Bush is losing support it may not matter. Has Kerry already picked a running mate? If not would it be out of the question for him to pick Nader?



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Well, just for knowledge, here are the basic resumes of the previous and current U.S. President (both are impressive!
) as well as the resumes of the other two U.S. Presidential candidates this year. What do you think?

Bill Clinton
BA Foreign Service, Georgetown, 1968
Rhoades Scholar, Oxford (U.K.), 1969-1970
Law Degree, Yale, 1973
Governor of the State of Arkansas, 1978 - 1980; 1982 - 1992
President of the United States of America, 1992 - 2000

George W. Bush
BA History, Yale, 1968
MBA, Harvard, 1975
served in Texas Air National Guard
Governor of the State of Texas, 1994 - 2000
President of the United States of America, 2000 - ??

John Kerry
BA Political Science, Yale, 1966
Law Degree, Boston College, 1976
served in U.S. Navy; decorated Vietman War veteran
Lieutentant Governor of Massachusetts, 1982 - 1984
U.S. Senator (Massachusetts), 1984 - ??

Ralph Nader
BA Government & Economics, Princeton, 1955
Law Degree, Harvard, 1958
served in U.S. Army
has been a lawyer in Hartford, Connecticut, and a professor at Princeton, as well as a book author

So there ya go!
All fixed up!


[edit on 6/27/2004 by ThunderCloud]



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 12:47 AM
link   
George Bush is not a Junior. He served in the Texas Air National Guard, not the Texas Air Force.

John Kerry served in the U. S. Navy, not the U. S. Army.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
George Bush is not a Junior. He served in the Texas Air National Guard, not the Texas Air Force.

John Kerry served in the U. S. Navy, not the U. S. Army.


Well, I just posted it, didn't write it, but thanks! I'll fix it up above...



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I don't see Nader having nearly the effect that Perot had in 1996, but it still may be enough to sway the votes in Bush's direction.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 03:24 AM
link   
You know Nader is just stupid about this election and the one before where he helped Bush get elected by knowingly taking more votes from the democrats than the republicans. First Nader has worked long and hard on issues like protecting the enviorment but yet he runs for president knowing he will not win taking votes away from the democrats, everyone know that the dems are going to be a bit more enviormentally sympathetic (especially Gore) than Bush. Bush has a record of not giving a diddlies dam^ about the enviorment and yet has probably done more damage to what Nader has all the years worked for. Nader's ego has outgrown good old common sense because all he is accomplishing by running is continuing to tear down what he has worked for.


df1

posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 06:49 AM
link   
The longtime consumer advocate wants would-be supporters to attend his rallies, but he says he wants them to feel free to cast their votes for Sen. John Kerry once they enter the voting booth.
www.npr.org...

This is a page where you can launch an "all things considered" audio clip. Ive posted it earlier to its own thread, but it received no ATS attention. Im quite surprised as this would seem to be a sign of more bad news for bush, in a period of mounting bad signs.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
I'm quite surprised as this would seem to be a sign of more bad news for bush, in a period of mounting bad signs.


One would think that Nader entering the campaign would be a good sign for Bush. Nader helped Bush win in 2000, and he likely will help Bush win again. Similarly, I can remember Clinton saying in later years that he was happy when Perot entered both the 1992 and 1996 campaigns...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join