I don't get it either. Followed to its logical conclusion, if a vote for Nader is a vote for Kerry, then if Kerry is the probable winner but all his voters vote for Nader instead, then Kerry should still win. And that doesn't follow.

A vote for Nader is not a vote against Kerry, but it sure isn't a vote for him, either.

I think he's talking about his specific vote: since he might well vote for Bush if he does not vote for Nader, then his particular vote for Nader would actually be a vote for Kerry.

By that logic, I suppose, my own particular vote for Kerry will end up really being a vote for Roy Moore. (If he chucks his hat in the ring, that is.)

From a coldly calculating political perspective, Ralph Nader (and the motley group of "progressive" organizations that may support him) must destroy the Democratic party.

In a "first past the post" system in all Presidential, Congressional, and State elections which we have, there is only room for two parties. The only third parties which survive in any such nations have a geographic base which supports them. The Liberal Democrats in Britain regularly get 20% of the votes for Parliament, but only 5% or so of the seats in Parliament, because of Britain's "first past the post" system of elections.

In contrast, nations with full or partial "proportional representation" systems have a multiplicity of parties. Israel is the classic example.

So Nader and his bunch must destroy one of the two established parties to make it in the U.S. It's obvious the party they must destroy is the Democratic party. They're not going to win over any Republicans.

Of course their goal appears delusional for now. But that's what they have to aim for if they really want to make their mark on our nation.

Now is not the time to be splitting hairs about our country's two-party political structure. That's as insanely stupid as if a group of US soldiers leisurely stood on the beaches at Normandy, discussing their attack strategy, when a storm of Nazi bullets and mortar shots are destroying every inch of ground around them.
Sorry for a stupid WWII reference. But Bush is evil, stupid and arrogant. His intentions are not just. And his staff is quite possibly even more fiendish than he. Vote for John Kerry, or else, people!! A vote for Nader, this time around, is a vote for the apocalypse! Because if we have to live through four more years of a Bush Administration, we won't have a country, we won't have our freedom, and we sure as hell won't have a democratic political system to bicker over about!!

"But Bush is evil, stupid and arrogant. His intentions are not just. And his staff is quite possibly even more fiendish than he. Vote for John Kerry, or else, people!! A vote for Nader, this time around, is a vote for the apocalypse!"

Yes, please, continue spewing this rhetoric for the next eight months. Convince your friends and allies to do the same. That'll really win over the public. The Republicans will love you for it.

While I gladly voted for Nader in the last election for numerous reason and would do so again in a similar situation, I'm against his run this time around. Last time he ran to prove a point. I agreed with that point and still do. But the man is not presidential material. He's divisive and negative, the exact opposite of what a president should be... but perhaps the makings of a good legislator. However, I dislike Kerry tremendously... and of course, loath Bush. So... who to vote for? Pure evil? The lesser evil? The third least evil? I'm thinking I just might sit this one out this year... or vote for myself... I'm very unimpressed with our options as they are now.