>>"Nearly 10 percent of the Nader contributors who have given him at
>>least $250 each have a history of supporting the Republican
>>president, national GOP candidates or the party, according to
>>computer-assisted review of financial records by The Dallas Morning
>>News"? That is not surprising, given that 37.6% of the voters who
>>ranked Nader the highest in surveys of voter preferences and
>>actually voted cast their votes for Bush (Barry C. Burden, 4,
>>"Minor Parties in the 2000 Presidential Election,"
>>
>><http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/conference/burdosu.pdf>).
>
>Yoshie, the Nader donors mentioned in this piece aren't the
>perplexed swing voters who kinda like Nader and kinda like Bush.
>They're major GOP players, highly informed and committed pro-Bush
>partisans. If voting for Nader is the progressive tactic, why do you
>think these guys are supporting Nader?
The Bush partisans who give to Ralph Nader have their own motive -- reelecting Bush -- independent of Nader voters, as they presumably won't vote for Nader, but the impact of their money is minuscule, as the total contribution to the Nader campaign is tiny to begin with: "Total Receipts: $929,481 . . . Date of last report: February 29, 2004" (at <http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00000086>). If the Bush partisans really want to make a difference, they should do better than $92,948, which is dwarfed by the sum of money given to Kerry by top bipartisan contributors -- just to take one example, "Kerry's top contributor, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, has given nearly $106,000 to his campaign. But the nation's largest law firm has contributed an additional $65,000 to the Bush campaign" (at <http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2004/PresFRJan.asp>). Oh well, Republicans, even "tactical contributors" among them, are tightwads, when it comes to giving to the left, in contrast to the allegedly liberal rich who give liberally to Republicans as well. :-)
>>Presumably, the question of what percent of the Kerry contributors
>>who have given him at least $250 each have a history of supporting
>>the Republican president, national GOP candidates or the party is
>>not newsworthy, as too many readers expect the answer to be close
>>to 100%. :-)
>
>But that's perfectly consistent with the analysis of those of us who
>say Bush-Kerry differences are small (but significant). It's not
>consistent at all with your analysis, which says voting for Nader is
>progressive.
If getting the least amount of money from those who have "a history of supporting the Republican president, national GOP candidates or the party" is a sign of a progressive campaign, as Mike Larkin and John Lacny suggest it is, progressive voters should vote for Nader rather than Kerry. -- Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>