Which party would benefit ?

I never bought the arguement that Nader cost the Democrats the presidential election in 2000 and 2004, or that he was even a factor. Not all of his supporters were disillusioned Democrats; many were simply independents disgusted with both parties (as was Nader himself). Many of his policies ran seriously against the Democrat party line. I really doubt ALL the Nader voters in Florida and New Hampshire would have voted for Gore or Kerry.

However, I do think that if Nader was allowed to participate in televised debates, his numbers would soar, or at least greatly exceed what he’s gotten before. But neither party would ever let this happen.

Certainly Nader running will benefit the Republican party.

Not sure how large the effect will be. Many of the people who will vote for Nader wouldn’t vote if there were no truely progressive candidates on the ballot. Also, a lot of Democrats are mad at Nader for being a spoiler in the past.

If we have a close race even a small effect could sway the national election. Look at our 2000 election. Even a few hundred votes could have changed the outcome.

I have to agree that Republican dirty tricks and even the confusing butterfly balots in Florida had more to do with deciding the 2000 election than Nader’s candidicy.

Consider that out of the millions of Florida votes the election was decided by a few hundred votes. When things are that close it takes very little to sway the election.

I believe that Nader wants to be the spoiler. He wants the Democratic party to continue to loose until it changes. I agree that the Democratic party needs to change but the amount of harm that another 4 years of Republican rule could do to America could take decades to undo, especially if he stacks the Supreme Court with right wing nut jobs who will serve until they die.

neither, this election is going to be so messed up im voting for an independant