If Left is the way to go why didn't Ralph Nader win in 00 and 04?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Or why didn't Dennis Kucinich win the democratic nomination?

:shrug:

[iconoclastNYC]

1. LOL.

You are kidding right?

[Terran1212]

52. They don't have the money to control the electoral populace

And that's just the truth

[Leeny]

59. I don't get it

Weren't the 2000 and 2004 elections bogus anyway? Didn't we see both elections stolen? I mean, I guess we need to figure out what's going to work when and if there is a next election that is not fraudulent, but it seems that we could all vote for the best candidate and as long as the Reps have it rigged it won't matter a damn bit.

Naive? :shrug:

[ananda]

2. Not everyone believes..

.. that left is the way to go. I do though.

If you go left, you'll be right.
If you go right, you'll be wrong.

hehheh

Sue

[left is right]

28. i always say left is right

[Branjor]

3. Because

Gore and Kerry took votes away from him? :shrug:

[Der Blaue Engel]

4. .

:popcorn:

[iconoclastNYC]

5. The media ignored Kunicich, voters don't trust third parties, and

the whole of the Party has been convinced by DLC snake-oil selling "consultants" that the way to win is to grease up for corporate america.

If the left isn't the way to go why is that the Democratic party was more left wing when it controlled most of the government? How come it hasn't won an election since Clinton and the DLC moved it to the right.

And i'd like to point out Nader ran because he rightly sees the Democratic party as being Republican light, infilitrated and neutered by corporate forces.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

10. So most democrats are lefties but they just don't know it?

The democratic party won THREE elections since clinton moved it further to the center. Clinton, Clinton, Gore. Some say it won four.

[ikojo]

19. Not most Democrats...most Americans support the

social policies of the Democrats. Remember MOST Americans don't even bother registering to vote let alone vote, because they don't think their vote matters. Most people don't think the politicians care about ordinary Americans and watching how some Dems voted on issues of concern to working people only confirms that.

[Pepperbelly]

34. LOL -you're not serious with that reasoning, are you?

The reason we were in control when we were more "left" is because when we first climbed on top for that long, long span of time was because just prior to the '32 election, the gops had landed us square in the middle of one of the greatest economic depressions in recorded history.

Everyone was pissed off at the right wing and virtually everyone became a Democrat. Plus, the South was solidly Democratic. Your reasoning in this is specious. It is the equivalent of the rooster boasting about bringing the sun up each morning.

[politicaholic]

6. Elections are now based on who you'd want to have a beer with...

What. You didn't know?

[HereSince1628]

7. Crikey, If the MIDDLE is the place to go why did Lieberman lose?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

11. Maybe the sweet spot is somewhere between Kucinich and Lieberman

i e Clinton/Gore

[HereSince1628]

25. Hillary looks to be standing on Liebermans shoestrings

I doubt Gore wants to be Vice President again.
I think Clinton/Mosley-Braun has a better chance.

Personally, I think the "right leaners" need to take a deep breath and let their supposed populist instincts locate the center of gravity of the Democratic Party.

[LittleClarkie]

21. If Leiberman was middle, then where was Kerry?

Folks have accused him of being more to the middle. But how can he be if that's where Leiberman is standing. Kerry was surely to the left of Lieberman.

There are those who seemed to think that if Kerry had gone left instead of center he'd have won in a landslide.

Or was the point more that if Kerry would have come out strongly against the war, he'd have won in a landslide?

But then, we're back to, why didn't the most anti-war candidates win the primaries in a landslide?

Charisma? Some have said that Kerry didn't have charisma. But he won.

Qualifications, maybe?

BTW, could you explain why you don't consider Nader a leftie?

[HereSince1628]

30. A question of middle of "what" Lieberman attempted to be in the

middle of the national demographic, not the democratic demographic.
When you stand where Lieberman stood I believe you are to the right of the Democratic Party.

I personally don't think Dean or Kucinich lost the nomination because the didn't support the war.

And at any rate support for getting into the war is going to look ill-advised to the electorate by 2008. The nation is already turning its back on Iraq. I think there is no point in getting into that.

In 2008 the military issues will be to re-establish an appropriate mission profile and force structure for the military. Including strategies that insures National Guard/Coast Guard capacity to respond to civil emergencies in the face of the military being deployed in combat elsewhere.

Nadar and the greens are so far to the left they are beyond the left end of the Democratic Party. Philosphically Bush and Kerry were closer together than the Philosophies of Nadar and Kerry (which Nadar recognized by saying there wasn't a degree of difference between Kerry and Bush).

[LittleClarkie]

33. You have to move pretty damn far to the left not to see a difference

Do you see the spectrum as being a circle? I have often joked that Nader and Buchannan are standing right next to each other, but with their backs turned. If they'd ever turn around, they could shake hands, they're that close.

I suppose if you're almost standing outside the system, anyone still within the system is going to look closer together. I haven't studied Nader and the Greens much, so I don't know if you could call them "outside the system" exactly. Perhaps standing at the edge of it, the next step being an anarchist.

You know something? I'm sorta talking out of my depth here. Any validity to what I just said?

[Pepperbelly]

46. but neither ...

did they catch fire because of it.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

22. ALF ate their cats.

[K-W]

8. I hope this is a joke. EOM

[meganmonkey]

9. Many things have changed since 2000 - even since 2004, for most

Americans who don't frequent DU (cuz we sure aren't surprised at how shitty the last 10 months have been for the good old USofA)

:shrug:

[joemurphy]

12. Because Progressives are, by definition, out front of the

general public. Think about it. Virtually every liberal cause was originally a progressive position. Progressives have traditionally done the legwork, at the grassroots level, to have their ideas gradually become mainstream.

That's probably why Progressives are usually frustrated, committed, and often unhappy. But they're vital to our society. But, sadly, they sometimes appear so far out that they cost more moderate Democrats votes.

[AValdoux]

13. Because they are portrayed...

...as liberal kooks. The Corporate Media packaged them as loonies and therefore discredited everything they had to say. If their views were presented in a unbiased straight forward manner, annonimously, most americans would agree.


AValdoux

[NightOwwl]

14. Ralph Nader is no lefty.

And Kucinich just doesn't have the necessary charisma. I think he's a great man with great ideas, but he's missing the "oomph!" factor.

Now Wes Clark on the other hand. :loveya:

[BurtWorm]

15. Because it isn't just where a candidate stands.

It's how the candidate connects with the electorate.

[tjwash]

16. Bored?

Felt like starting a flamewar?

[MrBenchley]

17. Right on the money....

Dennis finished behind Al Sharpton in some primaries...he couldn't flush out more than a tiny handful of Democrats.

[K-W]

18. Yes it is on the MONEY indeed.

Gee, I wonder why someone who opposes corporate and elite control of government would have a hard time winning elections at a time when the single biggest factor in elections is media treatment and media advertising.

Im sure the corporate media did a bang up job of presenting Kucinich and Nader to all Americans as viable candidates with tons of accurate information about thier ideas and arguments.

In order to take this thread seriously, one has to completely ignore everything we know about elections in the US and assume that Democratic primaries and presidential elections provide an equal opportunity to all candidates.

[MrBenchley]

23. Is that what you wonder?

"I wonder why someone who opposes corporate and elite control of government would have a hard time winning elections"
Funny, I wonder how Dennis couldn't even get past Al Sharpton in Delaware...Dennis couldn't even break double digits in his home state of Ohio. It couldn't be that even those who admire Dennis didn't think he was presidential timber, could it?

"the single biggest factor in elections is media treatment and media advertising."
Good thing that's changed since last election, then. Oh, wait.

"Im sure the corporate media did a bang up job of presenting Kucinich and Nader to all Americans as viable candidates"
Jeeze, the "had they but known" factor.

"one has to completely ignore everything we know about elections in the US"
Geeze, some people sure want to ignore election results and the success Nader had splitting the Democratic vote.

[K-W]

49. Not really.

Funny, I wonder how Dennis couldn't even get past Al Sharpton in Delaware...Dennis couldn't even break double digits in his home state of Ohio. It couldn't be that even those who admire Dennis didn't think he was presidential timber, could it?

You mean the swing state of Ohio, where by and large progressives were voting Kerry to try and unseat Bush?

As meaningless as the sharpton kucinich comparison is, I will point out that Al Sharpton was a nationally known figure who was prominant in the media, and is a master of self promotion.

Regardless, you cant possibly derive the conclusion you derived from those numbers, your methodology is rediculous. If Kucinich and Sharpton were the only ones in the race, and each was given an equal opportunity to reach voters and each were given equal party support, then you would have a point.

"the single biggest factor in elections is media treatment and media advertising."
Good thing that's changed since last election, then. Oh, wait.

No, it hasnt changed, which is why progressive candidates will continue to be at a severe disadvantage in elections as long as the party establishment prefers to marginalize them.


"Im sure the corporate media did a bang up job of presenting Kucinich and Nader to all Americans as viable candidates"
Jeeze, the "had they but known" factor.

Wow, cheap rhetoric in place of a substantive response... Im shocked.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the level and quality of information the voters have on the candidates doesnt effect the results?


"one has to completely ignore everything we know about elections in the US"
Geeze, some people sure want to ignore election results and the success Nader had splitting the Democratic vote.

So if I dont prescribe to YOUR interpretation of the election results it means I am ignoring them... right.

As far as Nader splitting the vote, what on earth does that have to do with this discussion?

[MrBenchley]

64. Yeah, I mean Dennis Kucinich's Ohio

Candidates are usually called "favorite sons" in any election in their own state and presumed to be the winner there, yet Dennis could only pull 9%. And that's 9% of his own party not 9% of all Ohio voters.

"As meaningless as the sharpton kucinich comparison is, I will point out that Al Sharpton was a nationally known figure who was prominant in the media, and is a master of self promotion."
Then I guess the comparison is not that all meaningless...and that "self promotion" trumps those "issues" you're wailing about.

"No, it hasnt changed, which is why progressive candidates will continue to be at a severe disadvantage in elections as long as the party establishment prefers to marginalize them."
This gets sillier and sillier. The "party management" controls the media coverage and every candidate's own advertising?

"Are you seriously trying to argue that the level and quality of information the voters have on the candidates doesnt effect the results?"
So if you dressed Dennis up in a spiffier shirt and put him on TV with a flag waving behind him....

How is it that voters in Ohio didn't have that "level and quality of information" on Dennis already? After all they've known him since the 1970s, when he was Mayor of Cleveland. Are you telling us that "e-e-e-evil Democrats" kept the people in Ohio from remembering him somehow? (Or made sure that all they remembered was Dennis setting his hair on fire in public?)

"As far as Nader splitting the vote, what on earth does that have to do with this discussion?"
There's a mystery. What could a third party that splits the Democratic vote have to do with a vote of Democratic strategy, I wonder?

[Pepperbelly]

47. they do ...

It is about putting together what it takes to secure the nomination. Period. That includes money, popular support, organization, logistics, a message, an image, the whole ball of wax. This is the environment in which Presidential elections are decided. Saying that it is unfair really begs the question.

To the winners, it is fair. To others, it may appear unfair.

Corporate contributions in 'hard money' is exactly the same as what you or I could contribute to a candidate. The 'soft' money can be used for some things but at the same time, if a candidate cannot compete effectively enough in the Democratic primaries to secure sufficient money, then they just didn't catch fire.

For whatever reason.

[K-W]

54. Yes, we could pretend that elections are an equal opportunity meritocracy,

but that would be rediculous.

This is the environment in which Presidential elections are decided. Saying that it is unfair really begs the question.

Begs the question? What are you talking about?

Saying that elections arent fair because money determines which candidates get access to voters isnt begging the question.

To the winners, it is fair. To others, it may appear unfair.

At which point someone who cares about the truth looks at the evidence and figures out who is right.

Corporate contributions in 'hard money' is exactly the same as what you or I could contribute to a candidate. The 'soft' money can be used for some things but at the same time, if a candidate cannot compete effectively enough in the Democratic primaries to secure sufficient money, then they just didn't catch fire.

For whatever reason.

Right, because before a candidate even gets the chance to campaign for the election he has to compete in a fundraising competition that pretty much decides who will win the election. This fundraising campaign pretty much completely disenfranchises the poor, and the ability you have to participate in this process varies with your income level.

The money flow to by ads and the coverage of the media then become the main factors that determine what most people know about the election when they vote.

The media is controlled by mega corporations, wealthy people are the group most able to participate in the fundraising process.

[Pepperbelly]

56. It is Darwinian ...

and that's all it will ever be.

[helderheid]

51. And yet he managed so much without the media such as...

Regardless of the media's lack of coverage, he's raised nearly 5 million dollars in less than a year for the campaign, and has the 2nd busiest campaign website on the net according to alexa.com, and his book "A Prayer for America" is a New York Times bestseller. He came in 2nd place on MoveOn's primary in June - only 4 MONTH'S after he began running for President. He also has a history of beating out Republican incumbents in highly Republican areas.

[Dr Fate]

20. Why didnt Dick Gephart or Liberman win? Why did Kerry get beat?

If going along with the far right on the war and the Patriot Act is such a great idea, why didn't that work for us?

Having said that, can we drop the labels and take this issue by issue, candidate by candidate?

[MrBenchley]

24. That would be 14-time elected Congressman Dick Gephardt?

"Why did Kerry get beat?"
I'll bet attacks on him from the far left were a big help....

[Dr Fate]

27. I was talking about his Prez. bid. Kusinich & Braun get re-elected too.

And I dont remember Kusinich, Braun or Sharpton (assuming they are "far left" by your definiton) attacking Kerry after the primaries.

And you don't remember ME even remotely attacking him during or after the primaries.

In fact, I remember the DEMs being more unified than I've seen in years. Nader was barely a blip on the radar screen in 2004-the general consensus most of us had at DU and as DNC fundraisers for "Grassroots Inc" was that he was a joke.

I would say Kerry got beat because of the way he was "Swiftboated" by Bush/media and attacked as a "flip-flopper" more so than any "attacks" from this "far left" you keep bringing up.

Rather than all these "far left" or whatever type labels, I'd rather take all this issue by issue, candidate by candidate.

[LincolnMcGrath]

29. You are correct Ralph Nader won 0.4% in 2004

Perot won 18.8 percent in 1992


Those who would even suggest that 3rd parties and or the "far left" lost the last election have some serious soul searching to do.

[Dr Fate]

31. Nader was a JOKE in 2004. The "far left" voted & campaigned for KERRY.

And I put "far left" in quotes because I think we all have different ideas of where things are on the political spectrum.

For instance, some folks would have me believe that supporting a war based on lies & fraud is "centrist"- but if I had to give it a label, I would call that "far right."

[LincolnMcGrath]

32. I'm with you 100%

I was asked to leave the party today for daring to question the "almighty dlc". lol

:yourock:

[Dr Fate]

35. I see your "Union" icon- you must be "far left" :)

Of course, I would say that weekends, comp-time, vacation time, sick-leave, bargaining rights and fair pay-raises are pretty "moderate" or mainstream concepts.

But all kidding aside-I don't know how we are going to do it- but if we could drop the labels and weigh everything issue by issue, candidate by candidate, we just might get somewhere.

[MrBenchley]

40. Ummmm....

"some folks would have me believe that supporting a war based on lies & fraud is "centrist""
Yeah? Where was that?

[Dr Fate]

45. Support for the Iraq war was indeed presented & defended...

...as a "moderate", "centrist" "common sense" position.

In reality, it is immoral and far right. 60% plus of the country sees that.

Moderates, centrists and progressives don't believe in propagandizing a nation with fraudulent wars- that is more of a far right or facist concept. If we had framed it that way instead of voting for it, I think they would have agreed with us- like the 60% plus does now.

You tell me- where on the political spectrum would you put support for a war known to be based on fake WMDs, fake documents, lies, outing CIA agents, etc?

[MrBenchley]

62. So in other words...now that it's been exposed as lies

people are changing their minds? THat's very different than your arrogant claim.

"If we had framed it that way instead of voting for it, I think they would have agreed with us"
Says you.

"where on the political spectrum would you put support for a war known to be based on fake WMDs, fake documents, lies, outing CIA agents, etc?"
What a silly question. Tell us, who knew beyond all doubt that the case for war in 2002 WAS fake WMDs, fake documents, lies, outing CIA agents, etc?

[Dr Fate]

67. It was exposed as lies from day 1. The DEMs who voted "no" were right.

The DEMs who voted "yes" set themselves up as "flip-floppers."

I'd hate to see that mistake repeated.

Of course people change their minds when they finally see the truth- that is why it is bad strategy to cast votes based on false perceptions. It's a better strategy and better leadership to fight for the truth- the swing voters will come around.

Who knew? Anyone who had time to do a fifteen minute Google search on "Forged Nigerian documents" or "Scott Ritter" or Powell's false statements to the UN or the dissenting opinions w/i the CIA.

[eridani]

63. The really really really far left voted for Bush

--on the grounds that incompetent imperialism will destroy the US faster than possibly more competent imperialism practiced by a reality-based Democrat. There actually are people who think that disentegration of our current society will be better for everyone in the long run, even within the US. The Spanish Inquisition was a lot like that--torture was for the good of its victims, as eternal hellfire would have been far worse for them. And if they tortured the wrong people by mistake, think of all the time they'd get knocked off their Purgatory sentence.

[Dr Fate]

69. I never campaigned with any Democrats like that. n/t

n/t

[eridani]

71. That's because really really really far lefties aren't ususally Dems n/t

[MrBenchley]

36. So he wasn't presidential timber...

That's why we have primaries...so Democrats can select a candidate.

"And you don't remember ME even remotely attacking him during or after the primaries."
Now I hope you're not going to pretend Kerry wasn't attacked by the fringe left. And yeah, he got swiftboated and labelled a flip-flopper. (I wonder how often "he was for the war before he was against it" was said not in jest by folks hereabouts just before the election.)

[Dr Fate]

37. He was attacked on DU by some- but they were a blip on the radar...

...as far as what your average American saw. Your average American saw the media doing all that- not sandal wearing hippies.

DU is a bubble- I dont really reacll any "far left" types on the TV, radio or in the papers going after Kerry. Certainly not anyone in the Democratic Party.

Most of these far left types campaigned for and voted for Kerry- I know, because I did it side by side with them in San Francisco and Georgia.

As far as trolls or even sincere, albiet misdirected Lefties taking Kerry to task for his "flip-flopping"- that could not have happened if he had listened to the pleas of moral Democratic moderates and "the far left" to vote "no" against Bush's fraudulent war.

[MrBenchley]

38. B-b-but weren't you telling us

to ignore the average American and concentrate on the fringe left?

[Dr Fate]

43. My position is that Average Americans were fooled by the far right.

Some DEMs went along with the perception that Bush was doing the right thing by attacking Iraq based on lies- as opposed to fighting to change that false perception.

Some Democrats went along with the perception that supporting a war based on lies is "moderate" or "centrist"- when it is really a far right concept.

Many elected Democrats chose to ignore Democrats on the ground and those you label "far-leftists" who were opposed to Bush's plans, by voting "yes."

We would all be better off if some of them had been better leaders and opposed the war instead of setting themsleves up as flip-floppers.

Going along with the far-right & giving Bush what he wants is a bad strategy- we have never gained anything from it.

[Pepperbelly]

48. I think most Americans are more like me in this than you and this ...

could well be a tact worth investigating.

I am for the immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and a complete revisitation of the Afghanistan thing. At the time of the invasion, although not convinced of the need for the attack on Iraq, I was not sanguine in my skepticism. I saw that indeed, I could be very wrong.

But I wasn't.

Now, probably a very lot of Americans were in that same place. Not really convinced of the need but frightened by the lies. And now, totally opposed to the war.

We should NOT frame our rhetoric around when the war started. We should frame in on the HERE-AND-NOW.

[Dr Fate]

50. I'm bringing it up to look at the strategic mistakes we made.

We would have been better off fighting the perception that Bush was doing the right thing instead of going along with it.

I know hind-sight is 20/20- but for those opposed to going into Iraq, it was 20/20 foresight. Perhaps those people should not be labeled as "fringe" since they were and are correct.

"We should NOT frame our rhetoric around when the war started. We should frame in on the HERE-AND-NOW." Oh, I moslty agree- this is more of an internal debate b/t me and the good Mr. Benchly. We DO need to talk about the DSM and WMDs though- and frame it as "we were lied too."

I agree that talking about old mistakes is no way to frame things- I forgave Kerry and the others a long time ago for their votes.

My point is "fool me once..." you know the rest.

We have never gained anything from going along with Bush or the false media perceptions he inspires- we need to start learning from that.

[MrBenchley]

61. Gee, good thing we've got you attacking Democrats then...

"Some Democrats went along with the perception that supporting a war based on lies is "moderate" or "centrist"- when it is really a far right concept."
Again, show us which Democrats said "Yes this is all lies, but I think we ought to have a war anyway."

[Dr Fate]

68. I guess none of them had "Google." Establishing Bush lies is easy.

They hedged their bets- it was a mistake.

It's not "attacking" Democrats to say so- but I understand your purposes for framing it that way.

Doc

[applegrove]

26. Because they need an economic policy. And they don't have one.

The Third way has both economic strategy & a desire for universal medicine if that works (and it does - it saves money & is more productive for workers).

[Marr]

39. Yeah, you're right. The Dems should move to the *right.*

LMFAO.

I hope you're not operating heavy machinery today.

[ulysses]

41. heh - I'd like your thoughts over here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2142967

[Greyhound]

42. Because the only thing that BOTH the repugs and dems

agree on is that nobody else will ever be allowed to play, and they have ALL THE MONEY!

[Deja Q]

44. Nader's personality was even more robotic than Gore's. Worse,

after the Selection we heard more and more what a hypocrite nader had become over the years.

[pinto]

53. He didn't get enough votes. n/t

[chaska]

55. God, will ya'll just please stop it with this flamebait?

[McCamy Taylor]

57. He isnt fit to be president????

[bhunt70]

58. because the left, like the right, isn't representative of most people.

People have left tendencies, right tendencies, and some have a mix of both. No one should be expected to follow in lock step. You can be a fiscal conservative and socially liberal and be a perfectly good Democrat. You can be against all war, or you can be for the Afghanistan invasion and still be a perfectly good Democrat. You can be religious or atheist and represent Democrats in an excellent manner. We have the big tent, and our nominations should represent the most people that would like to call themselves Democrats. Sometimes that means some of the more left/centrist/right leaning people don't get on the ticket, Kucinnich and Nader didn't represent the majority of Democrats any more than Lieberman did.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. If "moderate" is the way to go, why aren't we still a Brit colony?

What have the "moderates" ever accomplished?

Did they end slavery?
Did they fight for universal suffrage?
Did they fight for a woman's right for choice?
Did they spearhead the civil rights movement?
Did they burn their draft cards?
Did they risk their necks in the labor struggles of the early 20th century?

Think of these names and tell me they were "moderates":

John Brown
Sojourner Truth
W.E.B. DuBois
Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Margaret Sanger
Martin Luther King
Malcolm X
Big Bill Haywood
Harry Bridges
The Berrigan Brothers
Jane Fonda
Susan B. Anthony
Sam Adams
Thomas Paine
Benjamin Franklin

Not one of them ever attained political office so they must have been failures. They were too far to the left.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. Because Political Choices Can Be Plotted On A Bell Curve...

eom

[1932]

66. I just found an interesting link (book by Rebecca Morton)

Herron and Lewis (2004) used the actual ballots from the 2000 election in ten Florida
counties to investigate the likelihood that voters for Nader in the state would have chosen Gore in Nader had not been in the election. The ballots not only tell how each individual in the county voted in the presidential election but also how he or she voted on the other races in that same election -- senatorial, congressional, judicial, and so on. Herron and Lewis used a technique similar to that used by Poole and Rosenthal (discussed in chapter 4) to estimate a partisan preference for groups of voters based on their choices across races. That is, recall that Poole and Rosenthal are able to use the set of votes members of Congress cast on a host of bills to estimate the members' ideological positions over policy. Herron and Lewis use the set of votes on each ballot to estimate voters' ideological positions over parties. However, since they did not have as many votes per individual as Poole and Rosenthal do, they grouped voters together by county, whether they voted absentee or on election day, and presidential preference, and estimate the party positions for each group. They then estimated the second preferences of the voters in these
Florida counties who chose minor-party candidates. Herron and Lewis found that Nader voters were somewhat pro-Democrat and Buchanan voters were somewhat pro-Republican, yet most of them were close to being partisan centrists. This result fits with the analysis of Hillygus and Burden since Florida was a battleground state and we would expect that minor-party supporters who had strong secondary partisan preferences would have voted strategically for one of the major party candidate and that those that actually voted for minor-party candidates would be largely expressive voters who did not have a strong second preference. Fitting with this result, Herron and Lewis also show that if Nader had not been a candidate, 40 percent of his voters would have chosen Bush based on their choices in other elections. Nevertheless, Herron and Lewis found that the remaining 60 percent of Nader's votes would have voted for Gore, and thus
they argued that the evidence suggests that Nader's candidacy did cost Gore Florida.

Page 29
Rebecca B. Morton, Analyzing Elections
page 400

This analysis assumes that these Nader supporters in Florida would have voted in the
two-man race. But the investigation of Hillygus suggests that most of the voters that Nader mobilized in the election were expressive, the type that appear to have voted for Nader in these Florida counties according to the analysis of Herron and Lewis. Since Herron and Lewis have no data on non-voters, it is impossible to say whether the Nader voters would have actually chosen to participate if the election had been a two-man race and that Gore or Bush would have received their vote.


http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/morton/book/MortonElectChap14.pdf

[Catchawave]

70. Need to get Third Party candidates elected to

Congress first? Unfortunately, the Green and Independent Parties haven't figured that out yet???

Kucinich was the darling of the far Left, he had the endorsement of many environmental and animal protection groups. He had the respect of the MSM, but not pushed there either. That left us with mainstream Dem candidates. Then DNC candidates, then DLC candidates....soooo, my DU friends, guess it isn't too early to discuss 2008 afterall :)