• Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Nah. He’s now a spoiler candidate. Can’t win, but can shave off Biden’s votes for Trump.

      Nader 2000.

      • gen/Eric@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        9 months ago

        I, personally, don’t know any democrats who would vote for RFK over Biden. To me, it seems more likely that he’d split the Republican vote.

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          9 months ago

          The worry isn’t with the highly or moderately informed voter block, it’s with the people who pay little to no attention to politics, yet still vote. Those are the people that are more likely to vote for a family name with a positive brand - which “Kennedy” is.

      • Zombie-Mantis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        Thankfully, polling has suggested that he’s actually more popular with Republican voters than Democrat, so we might get a reverse-Nader.

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Bigger margins leave you less vulnerable to fuckery by corrupt election officials and judges.

          Fact of the matter is, if Nader wasn’t on the ballot in 2000, Gore would’ve like had a healthy margin. He had almost 100,000 votes, and Gore only needed several hundred.

          • Sybil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Fact of the matter is, if Nader wasn’t on the ballot in 2000, Gore would’ve like had a healthy margin

            you can’t prove that.

            • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Nope, but you’d have to be fooling yourself if you thought, the people at the Nader rallies were down with Bush. If Nader wasn’t on the ballot, those votes were going to be Gore, people who declined state, or people writing in candidates out of protest.

              Gore needed less than 1% of Naders voters. The odds would’ve have clearly been in his favor.

              • Sybil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                you can’t prove a counter factual. In a world where Nader isn’t on the ballot, you don’t know who the dem nominee was either.