It's over for the democrats, Nader is running!!!!!!

Quote from dddooo:

There is a flaw in this logic though. If revenge is what Dean wanted it would make so much more sense for him to run as independent himself. He already had organizations and supporters all over the country - in New York in N Dakota in S. Dakota in California, in Oklahoma, in Texas.....:)

His supporters were begging him to run. He would undoubtedly attract significantly higher number of democratic voters and kill any chances of any democrat to be elected. In this scenario he'd also have a much better leverage to negotiate with democrats if he wanted to. Supporting Nader even indirectly is a complete lose-lose for him. But as you said - time will tell.
More...

As simple as it sounds, at this point in time, you don't just jump the party ship. Jumping ship at any time is almost regarded as an act of treason.

I don't necessarily think he's looking for revenge. View this whole thing as a contest between Dean supporters and Clinton supporters.
 
This is game theory on a very large level. Two independent parties, and the best man wins. Two independent parties with a third party more aligned with one of the other major two parties, and that party will see less votes and therefore the best man doesn't win.

I hope people aren't so naive the second time around.
 
Quote from aphexcoil:

This is game theory on a very large level. Two independent parties, and the best man wins. Two independent parties with a third party more aligned with one of the other major two parties, and that party will see less votes and therefore the best man doesn't win.

I hope people aren't so naive the second time around.
More...

Actually, here is where the game theory is. The decision is between Dean and the democrats. Dean is threatening to support Nader which would derail the democrats hopes of taking over the White House. The democrats are obviously threatening to ruin any future in politics he might have if he does that. Both sides have to be very careful how they play this. Clearly they both want the other side to choose the action which would benefit them without having to force them to do so.

For example, Dean wants either maybe a position in the new Kerry administration or at least a shot at something in 2008 if the dems lose. But to accomplish this outcome, he would prefer not to have to force their hand by actually supporting Nader.

Meanwhile the dems want to have no part of Dean but they can't be obvious about this intention or they force his hand which is to support Nader. The dems obviously want to keep Dean happy and at the same time, they don't want to help him. So both sides have to give the other side the impression that they will accommodate each others wants without actually giving it to them. What both sides don't want is for the other side to take action which would hurt both their causes. So what we have here is a classical cat and mouse game where both sides have to make decisions which will either force a favorable or unfavorable outcome. Yes, classic game theory at work.

Therefore, it would be to Dean's advantage to make a legitimate threat to the dems that he will support Nader but without actually doing so. It would make sense for the dems to lead Dean into thinking they will support him at a later date or give him a position in 2005 but of course without actually going through with it.

In this game, perception is everything. You have to actually make the other side think they are getting what they want without giving it to them and make sure your threats at the same time are credible enough to force the other side to make the decision you want. A perfect game of strategy indeed.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

Actually, here is where the game theory is. The decision is between Dean and the democrats. Dean is threatening to support Nader which would derail the democrats hopes of taking over the White House. The democrats are obviously threatening to ruin any future in politics he might have if he does that. Both sides have to be very careful how they play this. Clearly they both want the other side to choose the action which would benefit them without having to force them to do so.

For example, Dean wants either maybe a position in the new Kerry administration or at least a shot at something in 2008 if the dems lose. But to accomplish this outcome, he would prefer not to have to force their hand by actually supporting Nader.

Meanwhile the dems want to have no part of Dean but they can't be obvious about this intention or they force his hand which is to support Nader. The dems obviously want to keep Dean happy and at the same time, they don't want to help him. So both sides have to give the other side the impression that they will accommodate each others wants without actually giving it to them. What both sides don't want is for the other side to take action which would hurt both their causes. So what we have here is a classical cat and mouse game where both sides have to make decisions which will either force a favorable or unfavorable outcome. Yes, classic game theory at work.

Therefore, it would be to Dean's advantage to make a legitimate threat to the dems that he will support Nader but without actually doing so. It would make sense for the dems to lead Dean into thinking they will support him at a later date or give him a position in 2005 but of course without actually going through with it.

In this game, perception is everything. You have to actually make the other side think they are getting what they want without giving it to them and make sure your threats at the same time are credible enough to force the other side to make the decision you want. A perfect game of strategy indeed.
More...

Mav, interesting observation. There is a point I would disagree with you about.

Dean would never be considered for a position in the Kerry Administration. You never put your loyal opposition in a position of power.

The best that he could hope for is what they did for Hillary i.e for him to relocate into a Senate District where the Republican is vulnerable (or maybe a Demo that isn't a team player)and throw all their weight into getting him elected. That's most likely to be the carrot the party hands him.

Your observation about the Dems not actually going through with their offer of support is right on. If Dean hasn't yet realized their deceptive practices, he's not ready for national politics.

You're pretty savoy about what goes on behind the scenes, just what exactly have you done politically?
 
Quote from Maverick74:

Actually, here is where the game theory is. The decision is between Dean and the democrats.......

(edit) etc.
More...

Mav, great post. Very insightful. I am impressed!!!

How can a guy as savvy as you be so supportive of GWB? You seem to intelligent.

Peace,
:)RS
 
Did Maverick say he had friends who worked for the Dean Campaign and are now throwing thier support to Nader?

He has friends like that?

Anything is possible.

Dean is out Nader jumps in now. Well, is he a bargaining chip, or is he running on principle?

If Dean throws his weight to Nader, he is permanently marginalized. He'll be examining prostates in Turdville Vermont for the rest of his years.

Nader is an autonomous creature. He'll do what he wants.

After 2000, Nader said, "Don't blame me, if Gore couldn't beat this guy, he doesn't deserve to be President"
 
Quote from slammajamma:

After 2000, Nader said, "Don't blame me, if Gore couldn't beat this guy, he doesn't deserve to be President"
More...
I have to agree with him, although realistically Nader cost Gore New Hampshire (which would have won Gore the election), and certainly cost him Florida (by garnering over 100,000 votes when Bush was selected there by only about 600 "official" votes, again costing Gore the election). Sure, the Naderites claim that those votes wouldn't have necessarily gone to Gore, blah blah blah, but I have a difficult time imagining a Naderite voting for Bush, nor every single one of them staying home and not voting. Yet with all that said, Gore was pathetic and couldn't even manage to win his own home state of Tennessee which would have given him the election, so in my mind he didn't deserve it anyway.
 
Can two independents run concurrently along with the two major parties? Could we get a moderate right independent to run along with Nader?

Hypothetical Situation:

Election Today w/ just two major party candidates:

Kerry 53%
Bush 47%

Election Today w/ Nader in the mix:

Kerry 45%
Nader 8%
Bush 47%

Election Today w/ Nader and right independent:

Kerry 45%
Nader 8%
Bush 42%
Other 5%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top