Obviously, no one can tell you how to vote.
Based on the past (Gore v Bush) however, any vote for Nader will end up being a vote for John McCain & Sarah Palin.

If you can live with that, then go for it. But look at what the last 8 years has done to our country. A McCain/Palin administration will be, at best, more of the same. Personally, I can't gamble my vote away. Not this time. Not this election.

I agree with your decision (well not the Nadar decision, but to not vote for the lesser of two evils). I decided to vote for Ron Paul because he is most in line with what I want (not everything of course, but i think it would be hard to find a perfect match!)

@Tim,

"What did Bill Clinton do for us? Aside from NOT completely wrecking the ship by jumping into wars and debt..."--that alone, considering where we are today, is a heck of a lot! McCain/Palin, I fear, will only bring us more wars (reinstating the draft anyone?) and more debt. I can't live with that.

When Mr. Clinton left office we had a budget surplus. The unemployment rate was cut in half, which was a forty year low, and 15 million jobs were created--and that helped everyone, not only the elites. Yes, there was still too much inequality (which the Reagan Administration jump-started), but on the whole, our country was a hell of a lot better off under the Clinton Administration than the Bush Admin. by far.

The only thing a vote for Ralph Nader might bring is a McCain/Palin White House. Our country can't afford that.

If you liked what the last 8 years have brought us, you're going to love the McCain/Palin Administration. And in 2 years, when you look at the state our country might be in, perhaps you won't be sleeping that well knowing that your vote--and your public advocacy for Nader--helped to bring us McCain/Palin.

As I stated earlier: Personally, I can't gamble my vote away. Not this time. Not this election.

I'm not going to argue that a Democratic President is worse than a Republican one, I just can't do it. But that doesn't mean they are the best option to really challenging the conservative machine.

What the Democrats don't understand, and why they lose nearly every national election, is that people generally don't want to vote against something, they want to vote FOR something or someone. Democrats have defined themselves by opposition to the GOP- and their supporters trumpet this- you have to vote Democrat because by God we can't tolerate another 4 years under the Republicans.

This is not enough to get swing voters to come to your side, and this is why John Kerry lost in 2004: he defined himself by not being George W. Bush- which is a good platform, but not good enough to get elected.

If the Democrats actually had some spine and stuck to policy that really benefits Americans, they wouldn't have to pander to the middle with candidates like Kerry, Clinton, and Obama. You think that you're getting the best possible choice, but it's only because the opposition is so inconceivably bad. The Democrats are not an agent of social change or justice- they are obstacles.

Another Hunter quote-

"... the more I learn about the realities of national politics, the more I'm convinced that the Democratic Party is an atavistic endeavor- more an Obstacle than a Vehicle- and that there is really no hope of accomplishing anything genuinely new or different in American politics until the Democratic party is done away with. It is a bogus alternative to the politics of Nixon..."

Nobody is voting FOR a Democratic candidate, they are voting AGAINST Republican ones, and that is a long-term losing proposition. We need real alternatives, and that will only come through 3rd parties.

@Tim,

"Nobody is voting FOR a Democratic candidate."?

Not true, I'm voting, enthusiastically, for Mr. Obama.

My only point is, again, that a vote for Nader will only help in bringing us McCain/Palin.

Did Nader's candidacy do anything--anything--other than bring George W. Bush into the White House? That was the only legacy from his failed run in 2000. That's it! The only thing the Nader vote did was to dramatically alter the direction of America.

In any case, a vote for one party is always a vote against the other. And the Dems aren't, by a long shot, the only party that says don't vote for my opponents because...

Al Gore lost the election for Ralph Nader

Tim, I'm with ya buddy. I'm voting for Ralph because he isn't a corporate shill and actually wants to improve the lives of most American citizens.

Tim2 that is an incorrect argument. Why do Democrats continue to blame their losses on other people? Grow a pair and take responsibility for your party being the Republicans in disguise. If everyone who voted for Al Gore voted for Ralph Nader, Bush would have lost! Way to vote for Bush Democrats!

Plus Tim2, there were multiple other third parties whose votes would have swayed the election, not just the Green party. In fact, if the Democrats fought for the election that THEY WON, we wouldn't be in this mess. Personally, I can't vote for a party that allows Bush to steal an election and says OK, we'll just blame Nader! The Democrats are the true lunatics and hypocrites here.

Peace.

First of all I live in Massachusetts so my vote for Nader will in no way help McCain - Palin; Obama will win this state. Besides that's not logical argument.

Me: I'm voting for A.

You: You're voting for C! What's wrong with you!

Huh?

You're the one on a Nader post blasting Nader and not once mentioning any of Obama's positives. Not one positive statement about Obama besides that you're happy voting for him. Congratulations. Here's a cookie.

Second, my vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. The biggest issues for me are universal health care, end to wars, and to keep corporations in check. Obama will not deliver on these three issues, Nader will. I am not protesting anything. I am voting FOR Nader.

Voting for Nader did not lead to Bush. The Democrats being weak and allowing Bush to steal the election led to Bush. Period.

250,000 registered Democrats voted for Bush in 2000. Let me repeat that, 250,000 registered Democrats voted for Bush in 2000.

The Democratic party is to blame for Bush in 00 and Bush in 04.

Blaming Nader for Bush is like me blaming the Packers for the Patriots losing the Super Bowl to the Giants. It's retarded logic.

The Democrats are to blame for their own defeats.

Stop hiding from the truth.

@Adam,

I'm just saying your vote for Nader will mean nothing.
It won't change a thing--except, of course, to possibly help bring in a McCain/Palin Adminsration. An Administration, by the way, that is completley opposed to everything Ralph Nader stands for.

The Dems that voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, wanted Bush to be president. I'm sure some Republicans voted for Gore and Kerry.
However, most of the Dems who voted for Nader in 2000 were in no way prepared for what the Bush White House would bring.
(Frankly, Nader was not a factor in 2004.) But the Nader vote was a factor in 2000. Without Nader, Gore would have won in Florida, the state that decided the election. So, you're right, the Dems are to blame for Gore's defeat--because too many voted for Nader.

Obama is for what practically amounts to Universal Health Care.
He's for ending the war in Iraq.
He's for tax cuts for 95% of Americans.

Who has a better shot of getting elected--Nader or Obama?

Which administration would take us further away from better health care? Which admin. would be the one to push us into more wars? Which admin. would favor big business? McCain/Palin. A vote for Nader might end up, in reality, being a vote for McCain/Palin. If you're cool with, then go for it.

You can have the last word. It's been nice going at with you

Oh man, if I could buy you a Coke right now I so would.

I'm voting independent this year as well and people keep telling me to not throw away my vote. I don't see it that way, I see it as an opportunity to start sending a message that I don't think the country's issues fit into a neat little bi-partisan mold.

I fully support your bid to vote independent. I just really wish Ron Paul were running on an independent ticket.

I think this boils down to a fundamental difference in how people see elections.

They either see it as politicians do, or as idealists do. One or the other, rarely both.

Politicians see elections as a complex strategic game. It's all about alliances, compromises, and sacrifices in order to get into position to make a handful of changes they used to believe in. Their power is strong, but their beliefs are weak.

Idealists see elections as a chance to shout their beliefs to the farthest corners, no matter how their voice may be lost in the wind. Their power is weak, but their beliefs are strong.

At the end of the day, which one is going to achieve more?

Does the people's vote really mean anything? Gore won by a landslide in the vote of the people but still lost. Sure it can persuade the electoral colleges a bit (maybe). The People don't actually choose who's going to win the election sadly.