Let's say that on election day, the earth passes through a comet tail, causing mass temporary dementia, and Ralph Nader is elected president of the United States. What would happen next?
I can't even begin to wrap my ahead around that scenario. But I suspect it would mean less than some of us believe. I've seen a lot of anger on this site, and elsewhere, over the fact that Dean lost his shot at the presidency, and that Kerry is not the noble visionary we'd like him to be. But would a Dean or Nader presidency truly denote a change? Or would it just be four to eight years of maddening head-butting. I believe that ultimately, the presidency is a position where one can easily create problems, but do little to offer long-lasting, meaningful solutions. Certainly, there is much that can be done, on the environment, the economy, and foreign relations. But I think that Dean's message was lost on many of us -- that we have the real power to change our country. I think people thought he was talking about election day, but I think he meant that the power to change our country really has nothing to do with the presidency, and everything to do with our actions as citizens on other levels. I believe it's imperative to get Bush out of the White House, because he's a maniac, but the prospect of having Kerry, or not having Dean, should not be disheartening. The irony is that, despite our grievances with Kerry's voting record and other matters, his political skills will probably enable him to enact greater change than either Nader or Dean, and he's generally pointed in their direction.
I realize that the multiple choice format of the polls makes the following question difficult, but pick your best answer.