Nader was not the reason Gore "lost"

[mudesi]

I have said this before and I'll say it again. Whatever one's feelings towards Mr. Nader are, he did not impact the 2000 election in any way.

The usual "argument" goes something like this: People who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore had Nader not run. This is completely ludicrous.

The people who voted for Nader wouldn't have voted at all had Nader not run. That's why they voted for Nader, because he was a way for people who didn't like either candidate to say that they made a "protest vote". They didn't like either Bush or Gore, and if Nader wasn't there, they would have stayed home.

If people thought there was no difference between Gore and Bush, that was not Mr. Nader's fault. It was the mainstream media and Gore himself who fueled that particular perception. If people don't believe that anymore, they won't vote for Nader again if Nader runs. It's that simple.

Edited to put quotes around "lost", because I agree that the election was stolen.

[Joe Fields]

1. hmmmmm.....

:popcorn:

[IDemo]

2. What do you mean, lost?

[stevedeshazer]

3. Oh, the humanity

It's burst into flames! It burst into flames, and it's falling, it's crashing! Watch it! Watch it! Get out of the way! Get out of the way! Get this, Charlie; get this, Charlie! It's fire—and it's crashing! It's crashing terrible! Oh, my! Get out of the way, please! It's burning and bursting into flames; and the—and it's falling on the mooring-mast. And all the folks agree that this is terrible; this is the worst of the worst catastrophes in the world. its flames... Crashing, oh! Four- or five-hundred feet into the sky and it—it's a terrific crash, ladies and gentlemen. It's smoke, and it's flames now ; and the frame is crashing to the ground, not quite to the mooring-mast. <"All the humanity" or "Oh, the humanity"> and all the passengers streaming around here. I told you; it—I can't even talk to people <"Their friends are out there" or "Their friends are on there">. Ah! It's—it—it's a—ah! I—I can't talk, ladies and gentlemen. Honest: it's just laying there , mass of smoking wreckage. Ah! And everybody can hardly breathe and talk and . Lady, I—I—I'm sorry. Honest: I—I can hardly breathe. I—I'm going to step inside, where I cannot see it . Charlie, that's terrible. Ah, ah;—I can't. Listen, folks; I—I'm gonna have to stop for a minute because I've lost my voice. This is the worst thing I've ever witnessed.

[Radical Activist]

4. Anyone who loses their home state

really has no business blaming others for what happened.

And yes, of course Gore did win the 2000 election.

[onehandle]

12. Gore never blamed Nader.

I do. I also blame a cheating Bush and a crooked SCOTUS.

[kskiska]

16. Did Bush win Connecticut? n/t

[Lars39]

TN had election fraud/irregularites also.

[INdemo]

45. As I remember .......NBC acttually called TN going to Gore

early..then all of a sudden things changed drastically..TN went to Bush Florida had gone to Gore and Az was a toss up .....
Then it was like one big game of scramble..states called for Gore early were switching to Bush..So hell yes there was election fraud and it was well planned and probably in the planning stage months before the election....Gore did not lose in 2000.....

[bottomofthehill]

69. george bush lost his home country

by over 600000 votes. i am always amused when people say if you cant carry your home state when shrub could not carry his own country. GWB jr, the accidental president

[renate]

151. nicely said!

:applause:

[krkaufman]

132. Given the political shift in Tennessee from the time that he was last elected Senator ...

... such a comment isn't backed by reality.

[Radical Activist]

165. not backed by reality?

Gore lost Tennessee. That's the reality no matter how many ways you make excuses for it.

[LSK]

159. except Rove called people saying Gore would take away all guns?

[Radical Activist]

164. That might not have worked

if Gore hadn't pulled out of Tennessee a few weeks before the election.

[onehandle]

5. 537 of them out of 97,000 wouldn't have voted for Gore in Florida?

Math says otherwise.

[BlooInBloo]

8. None. NONE!!!

[Patsy Stone]

20. ...

:rofl:

And why the hell are talking about Nader again anyway?

[benddem]

37. huh?

537 what?

[onehandle]

49. Florida was certified with a +537 vote margin in 2000 for Bush.

Nader spent the closing weeks of the election in Florida to keep Nader voters from trading their votes for Nader votes in safe states.

[struggle4progress]

119. Those numbers are swamped by the 180K uncounted ballots which gave Gore a 77K margin

[krkaufman]

133. A net of +537 for Gore over Bush, but your point is correct.

Nader *was* a factor in the election results, along with a myriad of others.

[BlooInBloo]

6. But even if he was, it's ok, because there's no difference between them!

:rofl:

[DancingBear]

28. Get the quote right!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus H. K-rist, how difficult is it???

Nader said there was NOT ENOUGH DIFFERENCE, not that there was none.

Not to be mean, but you all sound simple enough trying to blame Nader without having to invent stuff.

Actually, the blame Ralph stuff is pitiful, as if all the Nader voters were somehow strong-armed at the last minute.

"We were going to vote for Gore, but this guy in a rumpled suit driving a Corvair made us vote for him!"

Remember, if Gore had appealed to those voters they would have voted for him.

And, judging by the actions of the current Dem leadership I wouldn't be surprised at all if some long-time Democratic voters finally get the hint and vote their consciences.

I can think of one...

[BlooInBloo]

29. No difference between Democrats & Republicans, for Nader.

[DancingBear]

32. Gee, thanks for researching it

:sarcasm:

[NYC]

81. I understand what you're saying.

Some of us know that.

[ProfessorGAC]

120. A Distinction Without A Difference

You and i both know what he meant. You're splitting hairs.
GAC

[krkaufman]

135. And Nader was wrong in saying "Not enough difference", as well...

... if that is what he said. In broadly categorizing Gore and Bush as not substantially different, Nader and the Green Party, that year, were doing the Republican Party's bidding -- as a net effect on voter turnout and votes cast.

Had Gore been allowed to take office, we would not be in Iraq. And had 9/11 actually still happened, al Qaeda would be on the brink of extinction. (where they were heading before Bush redirected our resources towards Iraq)

Had Nader been a wise politician, he could have negotiated with Gore for key platform concessions in exchange for Nader's endorsement. Short of that, he could have at least been honest.

All that said, Nader was just one factor in the 2000 election, and the net votes gained from a slightly different Nader campaign still may not have been sufficient to overcome all the other factors contributing to the effective theft of the Presidency.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

163. Nice Try, But Your Attempts At Altering The Reality Of His Words Ain't Gonna Work. Explain This:

"The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That's the only difference," he told an Amherst College crowd four years ago. "The two parties ... are becoming one corporate party, with two heads wearing different makeup, and that is not a good enough choice for the American people."

Are you seriously going to attempt to sit here and proclaim to the masses on DU, who happen to be overall a quite intelligent group, that what's quoted above is not the same damn difference as saying there's no difference between the repubs and the Dems? Can you seriously put that concept forth and expect DU'ers to not see right through it?

Nice try. :hi:

[beardown]

How's Lieberman working out for the dems now?

No difference? Technically wrong as Bush is only stupid and arrogant while Lieberman is insane and vengeful.

After reading here on DU over the last couple of years all the bitter and angry posts directed toward Lieberman as well as Nader and the Greens for not voting for a ticket that included him as the veep, I still see a gigantic, repub-like, blinding disconnect among those who supported a veep in 2000 that quickly turned into the nuke Iran, Bush loving, snake you all know now while still hating the Greens and Naderites for voting against a ticket that left Lieberman one heartbeat away from the White House.

Observing the dem's inaction against Bush's Iraqmire since winning both houses of the congress has done nothing, but validate Nader's statements.

Mr. Nuke Iran wasn't an issue? He was the primary reason why I didn't vote for Gore in 2000 and if he had been on the ticket in 2004, I wouldn't have voted for Kerry.

While I have no doubt that the USA would be in much better shape with a Gore running things after September, 2001, I also have little doubt that we might have already seen the US use of nukes or the US involved a major land war in the ME if Lieberman had taken a fallen Gore's place.

Gore lost Florida for many reasons. Thousands of dems voted for Bush. Illegal black voter purge. Failure to respond to illegal absentee votes manipulation. Failure to call for a statewide recount, instead of selected recounts. Poor ballot and election management. Nader votes. Jews for Buchannon, etc. Directing dem anger against the most progressive wing of the party that arguably most closely represents the positions of the traditional Democratic party is counter productive and fixes none of the faults of the 2000 election failure, but any scapegoat in a storm.

In case I spelled Lieberman's name wrong, he's lucky I don't just use my four letter version.

[BlooInBloo]

61. I'm second to none in my excoriating of the Connecticut electorate.

[krkaufman]

136. I'll call your "Lieberman one heartbeat away" ...

... and raise you "one incompetent imbecile in the Oval Office" *plus* "one supremely evil corporatist one heartbeat away."

The mistake of Lieberman as VP choice doesn't override the obvious policies to come from the two oilmen in the opposing ticket.

[Deja Q]

7. Plus the supreme court, plus both sides' handling of the issue, plus Gore's own impotent campaign...

The only candidate more robotic than Gore WAS Nader...

You'll get a lot of flak responses, but I agree with you as to why Gore lost. Nader had precious little to do with it, and his only impact was in ONE state. And at only 5% of the vote being taken by him, it's a bit bizarre he is scapegoated for having the power to have converted so many people. (give me a break...)

[firefox_fan]

9. Nader will only run in the next zombie movie by Tarantino. Perhaps.

[Gregorian]

19. Zombies with Glocks. Ooh, now there's a movie I want to see.

I think Tarantino is above zombies though.

[firefox_fan]

40. Did you see Grindhouse? And his previous zombie movie?

Pretty cool...

[TheModernTerrorist]

63. To be fair

the zombie part of Grindhouse was Rodriguez's work, not Tarantino's, and I don't remember any other zombie movies by him, except From Dusk Til Dawn, which wasn't zombies but vampires.

...regardless, Grindhouse was awesome through and through.

......no Nader though :shrug:

[firefox_fan]

76. Oh, right, it was a vampire movie...

Just saw Day Watch, BTW... Awesome new-vampire movie, Russian with creative subtitles...

[TheModernTerrorist]

83. yeah?

I heard about that movie. Did you see the prequel to it, Night Watch (I believe)? I saw parts of that and it looked fantastic. There's a third coming out eventually to cap off the trilogy, and I'll bet that'll be good too.

[firefox_fan]

89. Ahahah! Nothing better than a Nader thread to chat about vampires!

But, no, I was not able to catch Night Watch on the big screen (it played here, but I waited too long and then it was gone). I'll rent the DVD... And I'm looking forward to the Dusk (or Twilight) one!

[tblue37]

85. The books are better.

It's a trilogy, and Night Watch is the first of the series. Day Watch and Twilight Watch are the other two. I am reading the last right now. (I preordered them on Amazon, so I get them as soon as the translations are available.)

Edited to fix the typo mess I made of my first version of this post!

[firefox_fan]

88. I just ordered all 3 of them...

Last night... Cannot wait to get them! :)

[tblue37]

93. I fixed my earlier post.

Night Watch is the first; Day Watch is the second.

[begin_within]

10. So Nader's 97,000 votes in Florida had no impact on the outcome whatsoever?

[mudesi]

18. No

This is what I'm trying to get to here. The answer to that is NO. Those 97,000 people would not have bothered to vote at all. They were clearly not happy with the choice of either Gore or Bush. If Nader didn't run, why would they even show up at the polls?

[uppityperson]

21. What gives you the authority to speak for those "97,000 people"?

[DancingBear]

30. What gives anyone the right to think otherwise?

CV is that these voters somehow "defected" from the Gore camp.

I will argue that they said no to BOTH mainstream candidates, and voted their conscience.

There is nothing wrong with that - as a matter of fact if more folks would do so we might actually have a representative government again.

Hi uppity :hi:

[uppityperson]

51. We probably all know people who fit into these choices...

Defected from Gore camp, voting their conscience rather than to defeat the republicans. Would have voted Gore if Nader weren't running. Would have not voted at all if Nader didn't run.

I just get uppity when someone presumes to speak for them all, holding all to 1 standard as to why they voted as they did and what would've happened if Nader hadn't have run. Yes, I get peeved with those that tout conventional wisdom (defected) also.

Bigger problem was other vote fraud/rigging stuff and another problem for me was Mr.Nader's ego post election (I did lose respect for the man, he did a lot of good stuff for consumer safety, but I guess I am in the defected theory camp after all).

Hi DB back.

[mondo joe]

23. That's baseless speculation.

It really is.

[tritsofme]

24. A ludicrous suggestion

To suggest that 0.5% of Florida Nader voters wouldn't have bit their tongues and pulled the lever for Gore in Florida had Nader not been a choice is just not logical.

Your argument has no merit, and nothing to back it up.

[mudesi]

35. I just don't see why...

I just don't see why one would bother to get to the polls on election day with the intention of voting for Gore, and then on a whim decide to vote for Nader instead. My assertion rests on the assumption that anyone who voted for Nader did so because s/he wanted to vote for Nader. Otherwise, s/he would have joined the almost 50% of the other people who didn't even bother to vote at all. I say Nader was a protest vote.

[tritsofme]

43. I'm sure it was a protest vote for most people.

But for out of over 97,000, I'm sure that 537 of those people would have come to the polls regardless as no doubt most of them did in 1996 and 2004.

[hfojvt]

52. usually I vote for Senator, Representative, governor, state reps, and

state senators, Amendments, and for some reason, in Kansas, for judges.

[uppityperson]

60. You missed the point.

The point of previous poster was IF Nader weren't a choice, enough of these voters would've voted for Gore. You are confused, wondering why they would suddenly choose to vote Gore vs Nader. Try it is Nader weren't a choice. Would 600 have chosen to vote Gore rather than stay home?

I agree Nader was a protest vote. But if that choice weren't there, would 600 people have voted Gore while holding their noses? Hard to say and I don't think any of us can say with any accuracy yes or no. I am sure that most of us know people who would fall into either of those options.

[Harry Monroe]

95. It was a protest vote for me

In 2000, I voted for Nader because I wanted to. If Monkeyboy and Gore had been the only two candidates on the ballot, I would have not even bothered to vote. Gore in 2000 (and to be fair, he is a different politician now) did not appeal to me. Bush, well, anyone with half a brain who would have bothered studying up on him and his tenure as Governor of Texas would have seen back then that he was a mental half-wit and not fit for the office of the President. I look forward to the day when we have more viable political parties in this country and look forward to that same day when a 3rd party candidate or a true independent can win high office in this country. As of now, however, I'm not holding my breath.

BTW, should Gore decide to run in '08, I'd vote for him in a hearbeat. The country needs him now.

[CreekDog]

122. Not bothered to vote? That's irresponsible

There are congressional races to vote in, local races, etc.

If you just opt out of the election because the candidates on the top of the ballot don't suit you, then don't expect us to cater to you when we can't guess what will please you.

Honestly, Nader was a pretty bad candidate, getting 2.75% of the vote in 2000 and less than 1% in 2004. Thus, don't expect parties to radically shift their agendas to get 1-2% of voters who might not show up unless we nominate someone like Nader. Nevermind that nominating someone like Nader would also get us...yes 1-2% in the polls, a tad low for Democrats.

[krkaufman]

138. Re: the mythology of "not voting"

Those who opt not to cast a ballot are, in fact, saying that they are conceding their vote -- their voice -- to their fellow citizens, in effect rubber-stamping the plurality winner. In Illinois a non-voter effectively voted for Gore; in Texas, for Bush.

[Harry Monroe]

162. Well, I'm sick of "settling" for candidates.

We need to break the cycle of the 2 party system in this country. Sometimes I feel like I am settling for either tweedle dee or tweedle dum or the lesser of the two evils. I have often voted independent in the past. Call it a "protest" or what you will; with over 300 million people in this country we have to "settle" for the candidates that the two major parties thrust upon us?? Our political system is seriously flawed, starting with the electoral college. I live in Mississippi, so the electoral vote for the Chimp in '00 and '04 was a forgone conclusion. BTW, it is so bad in the 3rd Congressional district where I live, the Democrats did not even bother to put up a candidate to challenge the incumbent Republican, Chip Pickering. It was a choice between him and a perennial independent candidate for the seat. His name is Jim Giles and he's a racist, redneck cretin. Visit his site "Rebel Army". You'll be appalled. Needless to say, I did not even bother to vote in the Congressional general election last November, the choices being what they were. A reprehensible Republican or a racist?? So who was I "conceding" my vote to here???

[krkaufman]

137. Just one flaw in your thinking is that NONE of those 97,000 voters ...

... would have gone to the polls had Nader not been on the ballot. Rather, given that they cared enough to vote at all, a substantial number very likely *would* have voted that day -- for US Senate, US Rep, statewide and other local offices -- and most probably would have then also cast a vote for President, from the available choices.

Certainly, all 97,000 would not have followed the above scenario; but only a net of 537 votes for Gore would have been necessary to even the final "official" total. (Though several thousand more would have been needed to overcome Republican shenanigans and rioting.)

[LoZoccolo]

31. Lame. n/t

[ourbluenation]

48. dude - the man I sleep next to evey night would have voted for Gore if Nadar wasn't on the ballot.

[begin_within]

58. Do you have research data to back up those statemtnts?

[BeyondThePale]

64. that is one of the most nonsensical things I have read...

offer a shred of proof of how you know the mind of those 97,000 voters.

[Downtown Hound]

105. Please, to say that none of them would have bothered to vote

is beyond ridiculous. Every poll that I've ever seen that has Nader in it shows him drawing votes away from the Democrat. When Nader is removed from the equation, the Democrat's numbers always go up. You really think that's just a coincidence?

Do you really think that prominent Republicans would have donated money to Nader's campaign in 2004 if they didn't really believe that he would siphon votes away from Kerry? Do you really think they would have resorted to doing signature drives to get him on the ballot in swing states if they didn't think it would make a difference?

I've read some pretty out there, far fetched statements during my time on DU. But yours very well might take the cake as being the most ludicrous.

[baldguy]

131. Gore recieved the most votes in FL

[Merlot]

11. Did you forget the quotes around "lost" ?

I do agre with you about Nader not being the reason Gore didn't win. And he was a convienient scapegoat for the repubs - "Gore lost because of Nader" sounds a whole heckuva lot better than "Gore lost because we fixed Florida."

[uppityperson]

13. Wow. A mind reader. On DU. cool.

Or did you talk to each one individually (which could be why it has taken you over 6 yrs to proclaim this)?

[Selatius]

14. Gore himself takes some of the blame. He recently said it was his failure to attract more voters.

I forget which interview it came from, though, but it's fairly recent.

[mntleo2]

15. True, AND Gore Won, He Did Not Lose

...far more Democrats crossed the aisle and voted for Bu$h than any Nader voters, Nader had nothing to do with the election being so close. In Fla alone over 350,000 turncoat DEMOCRATS voted for Bu$h. At least the Nader people SAID who they wanted to vote for, they did not pretend to be one thing and then do another.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[sandnsea]

17. They voted for Kerry in Oregon in 2004

Pretty much sinks your theory.

[stevedeshazer]

26. And Gore in 2000

:)

This argument (not yours) is crap.

[Crunchy Frog]

55. I knew plenty of people who vote Nader in Boulder Colorado in 2000

who voted for Kerry in '04. I'm not sure what your point is.

[Olney Blue]

22. I don't understand why you are posting this right now.

[BlooInBloo]

27. Because of OMC's thread.

[DancingBear]

33. Funniest one of the evening

Unintentionally, of course.

[LoZoccolo]

25. There was no excuse to vote for Nader. n/t

[DancingBear]

34. There's no excuse to vote for Hillary either

Just so we're clear on things.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

39. Here's one:

[DancingBear]

102. So let me get this straight

I should vote for someone who is almost completely corrupt because her opponent IS completely corrupt, and that's even worse.

Wouldn't you think it would be best if I voted for someone who is not corrupt at all?

Oh, I see. I don't know how to play the game.

Silly me.

Very weak argument on your part, but I guess if that's all you have then that's all you have.

When you "play" politics, you always lose.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

113. If you want to vote for someone who has no chance of winning, sure.

But while you cast your protest vote instead of voting Dem, you are only enabling Republicans and increasing their chances for victory -- even the most "liberal" of Republicans is worse than any of our Democrats, Hillary included.

I personally am not a huge fan of hers, and will not vote for her in the primary, but if she makes it to the GE, you're damn straight I'll vote for her over ANY Republican.

[DancingBear]

121. Respectfully, baloney

This stupid "enabling Republicans" canard has gone far enough.

THAT is the reason you are electing people, because they are not as bad as someone else?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

You don't want change, you just want your side to "win."

At everyone else's expense.

Congratulations - you've done NOTHING to try and stop the farce.

How's that "just wait until we get a Dem Congress!" working out for you?

It's working out fine for the Dems - now it's their turn to ride the gravy train.

Harry Reid. Nancy Pelosi.

Don't make me laugh.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

124. No, I vote for people because they share most or all of my positions.

And anyone who thinks Hillary is going to be exactly like McCain, Giuliani, Romney, etc., is a freaking idiot.

You put all your chips on whichever major party you agree with that has at least a decent chance of winning. Once they do win, you get on them about living up to their promises.

However, you do NOT vote for some other 3rd party out of spite -- it accomplishes nothing, since those candidates will never win anyway, and yes, it allows Republicans a bigger lead, no matter how much of a canard you think it is.

And don't dare lecture me about how I don't want change. I do want change, and I recognize the only way to effect that is to, I don't know,vote for the Democrats.

But you go have fun with your Dem bashing. The Republicans will thank you for their 2008 victory.

:eyes:

[DancingBear]

127. See all the change so far in D.C.?

Just rampant, isn't it?

You've been hoodwinked but good, my man.

The sad part is you seem you like it.

To paraphrase - "anyone who thinks Hillary is not going to carry out the corporate agenda exactly like McCain, Giuliani, Romney, etc. is a freaking idiot.

"Once they do win, you get on them about living up to their promises" - now THAT was funny.

Oh, and please try real hard to figure this out. People do not vote for third parties out of spite - much as your political fantasy wishes it to be so - they vote for them because they realize it is the ONLY way to BEGIN to get representative government back.

In '04, I worked my ass off for Democratic candidates in Ohio, VA, and NH. This time, if the current crop of flunkies is all I have to choose from, I will own my vote and give it to someone deserving.

My goal will be to elect change - your goal will be to "win."

The journey, as you know, begins with one small step.

I'm willing to take it.

You want to hang new curtains in the outhouse.

P.S. Any time you want to tell me all of the great change that is coming from the Democratic Congress, and about how all your making them live up to their promises plan of action is really working, just go right ahead.

Shouldn't take too long.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

130. How does voting 3rd party begin to get people's government back?

I believe Nader topped out at 3% in 2000, if I'm not mistaken. Yeah, I really felt that sea change.

:eyes:

We don't have time for a "journey," as you put it. Just look at what BushCo has fucked up in only six years. If you want to enable that by waiting for a longshot miracle, go right ahead and enjoy watching Rome burn.

A question, though: If you are advocating not voting for the Democratic nominee (or at least Hillary), why are you on this website? It's *Democratic* Underground.

[krkaufman]

144. We're FIVE months in to a ONE VOTE Democratic majority.

Exactly how rapid of a turnaround in policy did you expect? November's election was just a small FIRST step in the right direction, but the Left has a long way to go to have a veto-proof majority -- or the Presidency.

Do you think we'd be hearing about the politicization of the DoJ if the Republicans still maintained majorities in both houses of Congress?

If you want to assign blame, where are the American people in the streets protesting against the Iraq "surge"? Against continued free trade agreements, etc?

[DancingBear]

157. Silly me, I thought they would actually take a stand against the war

But what do I know, they passed an increase in the minimum wage.

Wow! What courage!!

Maybe all the widows can make a bit more money now.

We're five, no eight, no ten, no 13 months into a ONE VOTE majority - hey, it's an all purpose year round alibi!

[krkaufman]

145. Okay, how about an increase in the federal minimum wage?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

125. Common Sense Reasoning Would Dictate You're Wrong Here. By Voting For Some

completely unelectable and useless third party candidate, you are doing nothing more than casting half of a vote for the republican candidate. That's reality. So if someone does that anyway, they stick their nose up in the air falsely if they believe they have actually done something honorable. In reality, they've done nothing honorable. What they have done is actually cast half a vote for the candidate that was the WORST one to choose. So the only shame there should be would be in doing such a thing to begin with. Standing on principle within such context should not give one something to feel good about, since all they did was assist in enabling the worse candidate's victory. That's a fact, and one I hope you'll actually think about logically until you get it.

[DancingBear]

160. I get your point

It's inane, and tired, and stale, and completely full of shit.

Think about what you just said. You ACTUALLY said it is better to cast a vote for an established half-ass candidate than to actually vote for someone much more qualified, under the guise of the candidate being "worse."

Your logic (and boy do I ever use that term loosely) boggles the mind.

It is no wonder we have candidates like we do - look who votes for them.

I think you need more fiber.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

166. I'm Saddened To See How Completely You Missed The Point. For Sake Of Redeeming Yourself, Would You

mind reading it again? It all makes perfect sense on its face, really. The logic is spot on.

I'm not sure what in the world you were referencing when you said the 'guise of the candidate being worse'. Are you saying the republican candidate isn't worse? Cause that's who I was talking about.

I'll tell ya what though. Read it again, this time with an open mind. See if you come to the same conclusion.

[krkaufman]

140. Judge not ...

Come election day, one does have that choice to make. Voting for a candidate that you know cannot win -- and cannot even get a statistically significant percentage of the vote -- is effectively the same as not voting.

Changing the mechanics of our political system and the policies of our politicians requires action far beyond one day every two years.

[sandnsea]

41. In the GE? Yes there is

Environment, choice, supreme court, minimum wage, increased funding. She is far from perfect, but I would hope people would never risk a Republican President ever again.

[BlooInBloo]

47. Details.

[uppityperson]

53. yup.

Unless that is the only choice in the general election and then, oh dear. Someday I want to be able to vote for who I want to be president,not against someone I want not to be.

[DancingBear]

123. You can do that now

We can go together.

"If two people do it they'll think they're both faggots and won't take either of 'em"


:)

[krkaufman]

139. Sadly, if the Left is dumb enough to make her their nominee in 2008 ...

... then voting for Hillary might well be an excellent choice, depending upon who the Republican candidate is.

There are no unicorns out there. We're not living in an idealistic fantasy world. Sometimes "the lesser of two evils" is the necessary choice.

[Forkboy]

36. Even with those Nader votes Gore would have won.

The Supreme Court was the deciding factor,not Nader.We don't know what votes went to who because they were never counted properly.I admit I can't prove this,but I suspect that had the votes been legally and properly counted we'd be in Gore's second term right now,regardless of Nader's votes.

I don't understand why the Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida always get a pass,or equally as bad,the people who couldn't be bothered to vote at all.Instead,we slam people who at least wanted to try to make a difference and acted in a democratic fashion to achieve that,while letting the illegal and unAmerican actions of the Supreme Court go.

I don't like Nader and never really have.I think his ego overtook his common sense long ago.But I'll defend his,or anyone's,right to run for office.The sense of entitlement that I see by some of the more fervent anti-Nader people is both highly arrogant and smacks of a disdain for democracy.

I wish he hadn't run.But I won't hound him as the next Satan because he did.The Supreme Court takes full responsibility for giving us Bush.

[IChing]

38. Must have been a slow news day for some

that resulted in mental masturbation, because someone "got off" on that topic.

[firefox_fan]

42. Ahahahaahah! True...

Could not have put it better.

[Forkboy]

44. Nader is the Dem's red meat like Hillary is to the Right.

Just the mention of the name starts some to drooling and obscenities.There's a couple of people I really respect that I don't agree with on this subject,but they get drowned out by the torch carriers.

[krkaufman]

148. Please note that this thread was started by someone claiming ...

... that Nader "did not impact the 2000 election in any way."

Responding that Nader *was* a factor does not mitigate all the other factors contributing to the effective theft of the election.

[ourbluenation]

46. YOU ARE WRONG!

My husband and my pops would have voted for Gore had Nadar not been on the ballot. I've forgiven them. ;-)

But yeah, they are proof positive that your theory may not hold up.

[ourbluenation]

50. Gore / Clark 08 n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

54. I voted for Nader in 2000.

I was mad at Gore, and I was in a state where it wouldn't be close enough for my vote to matter. I likely would have voted for Gore if I had been in a clsoe state. I know if I had voted for Nader in Florida, I would have shot myself by now.

I agree that Nader was only a marginal factor, but given how close to the margins the Florida vote was, marginal factors ended up being critically important in the ultimate outcome.

[pnwmom]

56. Not true. Many Nader supporters, including Michael Moore, have

regretted their vote for Nader and would have voted for Gore IF they had known the outcome.

Nader worked hard to promote the idea that there was no difference between Gore and Bush, and he deliberately set out to defeat Gore.

http://soc.qc.cuny.edu/Staff/levine/Ralph-Nader-As-Suicide-Bomber.html

RALPH NADER AS MAD BOMBER
_______________________________________________


Harry G. Levine

Department of Sociology, Queens College, City University of New York
March 2004 / [e-mail]

In the year 2000, Ralph Nader strapped political dynamite onto himself and walked into one of the closest elections in American history hoping to blow it up. He wanted to punish the Clinton-Gore Democrats for having betrayed him and the causes he believes in. His primary campaign mission was defeating Al Gore, but Nader concealed this from his supporters, even as he went after votes in swing states like Florida. On the day after election day, when everyone else was grim, and many Democrats were furious at him, Ralph Nader was a happy man.

The following essay presents evidence for this large claim and describes how I first learned this in the fall of 2000. Since the election, political discussions about Nader's campaign have often focused on its electoral effect. Did Nader's 97,000 votes in Florida defeat Al Gore making George W. Bush president? Most observers seem to agree that they did, but others insist that many factors defeated Gore. However, independent of the effect of the Nader campaign on the election results, one can ask about what Nader wanted to have happen. Now that he has decided to run again, in what promises to be another very close election, it is worth examining what Ralph Nader intended the last time.

SNIP



Eventually I was introduced to Tarek Milleron, Ralph Nader's nephew, the single person closest to him in the whole campaign. . . .
In Tarek's unforgettable phrase, Ralph Nader wanted to hurt, wound and punish the Democrats. This was much more than indifference. Nader was not simply opposed to helping the Democrats, he actually wanted Gore to lose. He didn't particularly want to elect Bush, but his desire to punish the Democrats out-weighed that. It also seemed to me that the desire to hurt Gore was not Tarek's personal mission, it was his beloved uncle's crusade.

Further, I had learned that the campaign's mission of punishment trumped getting political influence for Nader and for the causes he had long fought for. It trumped the potentially brutal effect of a Bush presidency on many Americans and other innocent people around the world. Punishment wasn't Nader's only campaign goal, just the most important one. But his supporters were not being told this. The campaign was not putting on their banners the motto: "Vote For Ralph Nader Because He Wants To Punish, Hurt And Wound The Democrats."

SNIP

[On the Road]

57. Nader Knew What He Was Doing

If he hadn't run, Gore would be president today. None of the catastrophes of the last six years would have happened. Nader will always have that on his conscience.

To think otherwise is unbelievable denial.

[Skittles]

59. to say he had no impact is f***ing ABSURD

be a Naderite if you like but do not try to excuse his crappy actions that helped install that piece of SHIT into the White House

[MazeRat7]

62. Since you can't prove "intent"...how do you plan to backup the premise of your OP ?

Specifically, how do you know that "The people who voted for Nader wouldn't have voted at all had Nader not run." Is that your opinion or did someone poll a significant sample of Nader voters to establish this ?

Again, do we know from some sort of poll, survey, etc that "people who didn't like either candidate to say that they made a "protest vote"".....

It sure sounds plausible... but like so many things that "sound plausible"... they need to be backed with some shred of data.

MZr7

[trumad]

65. Fuck Nader

[Blue-Jay]

68. Indeed.

[bottomofthehill]

71. agreed

[Spiffarino]

73. Exactly, but for a different reason

Nader didn't mean shit to that election. The Bush Mafia fucking stole it.

[pnorman]

106. And FUCK Joe Lieberman,

and the horse he rode in on in 2000 (You all know his name).

pnorman

[still_one]

66. Funny how people who had been close to Nader, implored him to reconsder running

especially in close states

The wonderful media attention he received, especially when Nader implied that there was no difference between the Democrats and the republicans

No, Nader wasn't the only reason, but he also isn't blameless, and to ignore that he could have influenced those people who voted for him in FLorida and other close states to vote for Gore WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE

Thank-you mister nader for the supreme court and the iraq war

[firefox_fan]

77. Well, I hope Nader's ego got a much needed boost, as a result...

[ourbluenation]

67. why in the holy hell does this thread have 6 recs?

[Spiffarino]

70. Gore didn't lose. Bush insiders rigged the election.

And the U.S. Supreme Court signed off on it. Gore won that election any way you slice it. Bush stole it by making sure votes were not counted and voters were disenfranchised. They did it again in 2004. They'll do it again in 2008.

Nader is a goddamned red herring and I'm sick to fucking death of hearing about him. Hell, there was probably a Socialist or some other lefty that garnered more than 537. Why don't you burn that guy's fucking house?

[krkaufman]

150. Without doing any further research, I suspect it's because 537 net votes ...

... is such a small percentage of the 97,000 Nader votes in Florida that it is inarguable that Gore would have had a significant margin of victory had Nader worked with the Gore campaign to commit to one or more Green policy priorities and thrown his support behind Gore -- in swing states -- to ensure Left-ish control of the Presidency.

[ryanus]

72. I thought Gore "lost" because Bush stole the election. nt

[Chico Man]

74. I would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't run

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[LittleClarkie]

75. Seems like ancient history

Why bring up the old argument. You probably won't change any minds, and yours won't be changed. It just feels like we should move on.

[L. Coyote]

78. What if Nader had said, "Vote for Gore"?

I'm betting he wishes he had.

[Hippo_Tron]

79. I trust the exit polls over your analysis with no evidence to support it

The exit polls said that while many Nader voters would've stayed home, a lot of them would've voted for Gore, and less of them would've voted for Bush.

[creeksneakers2]

80. Exit polls settle it?

"According to exit polls, 47 percent of Nader voters would have gone for Gore if it had been a two-man race, and only 21 percent for Bush. (Three in 10 say they would not have voted.)"

Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45950-2000Nov8?language=

Greens should carry shame for 2000 forever. They don't care though. They'll sabotage the next Democratic nominee too.

[Canuckistanian]

82. So, Michael Moore wouldn't have voted?

No, I disagree. The Naderites were passionate about politics.

Most were disaffected Democrats bitterly disappointed by the lack of political and campaign reform during the Clinton years.

I doubt many formerly apathetic people suddenly decided to vote simply because of Nader.

[Hamlette]

84. what, you don't remember all the vote traders?

I talked to several of them at the time (before they took the site down). there is no doubt in my mind the Nader people I talked to would vote. Nader or Gore but no way they stayed home.

I think your guilt is eating at you...as it should.

[elocs]

86. Nader was not "the" reason Gore lost, but he certainly was one of the reasons.

There was certainly no way that Nader helped Gore to win.

[magellan]

87. Anyone who blames Nader must blame Buchanan too

Or the Palm Beach County election supervisor. Who could forget that it was the anomalous Palm Beach County butterfly ballot that resulted in 19,000 overvotes: people punched the 2nd hole thinking it was for Gore when it was actually for Buchanan, then realized their mistake and went and punched the 3rd (correct) hole for Gore too.

19,000 overvotes, and there's no question most of them were meant for Gore.

[Hissyspit]

90. Doonesbury. Day before election:

[defendandprotect]

91. 2000, 2004 -- and even 2006 are in question . . .

VOTESCAM was written about elections in the late 1960's . . . as I recall.
There's a website, you can check the book date.
So they've been stealing elections via black box voting and shifting computer records for a long, long time.

Our press didn't figure this out and alert us -- two reporters did it on their own.
Like Barbara Harris currently, who worked to reveal this corruption of our votes.

The 2000 election was won by Gore -- anyway you count it --
And, the 5 Supreme should be impeached for that bit of chicanery.

2004 -- similarly/

2006 -- I hear there was a much LARGER Democratic win which would have provided for even larger numbers of Democratic Senators and Reps.

[JI7]

92. some people voted Bush because Nader lied and said there was no difference

so people who were upset with the Clinton administration over "scandals" decided to vote for something "new". since Nader lied and said there was no difference between Gore and Bush they assumed Bush was not as right wing and extremist as he is. so they voted for Bush.

[ComerPerro]

147. Moreover, how many people did Nader talk out of voting for Gore with his "they are the same" BS

The OP contends that those who voted for Nader wouldn't have voted for Gore anyway. But I am betting most of them would have refused to vote for Gore because of Nader's "Gore and Bush are the same" bullshit. Without those self-serving lies, I don't think we would have seen nearly as much disillusionment among voters. So not only did Nader manage to talk many Dems and liberals out of voting for the Dem candidate, he managed to talk many of them out of political involvement at all!

[zalinda]

94. And, of course, any one who mentions Nader

in the title of the OP will get a long thread. Sometimes it's more important to feel important, than to keep the peace.

zalinda

[uppityperson]

97. I just love posts like yours

complaining about the topic, the title, how the OP just wants to feel important and will get to do so because people will reply. Like you did. I love it. Of course, I have replied to topics which I should have just passed over too.

[krkaufman]

152. It's not like zalinda's one additional post significantly shifted the message count.

[Initech]

96. Gore didn't lose! The republicans stole the election!

They stole it in 2000 with a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, then they stole it in 2004 with those fucking voting machines. They will probably steal it again in 2008 unless Congress gets off their asses and does something about it.

[Jim Lane]

98. Nader himself has crunched the numbers and he doesn't look good

Nader, on , states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."

On those numbers: If Nader had withdrawn from the race, as many of us believe he should have (indeed, as many of us believe was a clear moral imperative), the result would've been a net gain for Gore in an amount equal to 13% of Nader's vote. Nader's vote total in Florida was 97,488. Bush's official margin in the final tally was 537. If the Bushies had needed to, they probably could have stolen a few hundred more votes here and there, but there's no way they could've stolen 12,000 more.

Obviously, other factors affected the election. If Gore had spent one more day campaigning in Florida, instead of in California, he probably would've won. Alternatively, if he had spent one day more campaigning in New Hampshire, instead of in Florida, he probably would've won. (Bush wins Florida legimitately, if you overlook the 50,000 or so illegally stricken voters, but Gore carries New Hampshire and becomes President.) Another alternative, that Naderites should ponder: If Gore had decided to write off the diehard fanatical purist Naderites and go hunting where the ducks were, he would've moved to the right. On that scenario, Nader gets more disaffected votes in Florida, and again Bush carries the election-day count without cheating; Nader picks up more disaffected votes in California and elsewhere, and Gore's margin there is reduced; but Gore doesn't alienate the longtime Democrats in the coal-mining state of West Virginia, which usually went Democratic before 2000 but was suspicious of Gore's environmentalism. Gore gets West Virginia's electoral votes and becomes President.

We can spin scenarios forever. If we're assessing Nader's conduct, though, we ask what he could have reasonably foreseen when he decided to run. What actually happened was no surprise. It was precisely the outcome Nader's critics had been pointing to.

As a tort lawyer, I value Nader's contributions to American law. But if we judge him as we would a tort defendant -- by the legal standards of foreseeability and proximate cause -- then he was part of the reason Gore lost. In a jury trial, he would be assessed some percentage measure of the culpability, less than 100% but significantly greater than zero.

And, in the eyes of many of us, it will forever be a blight on what otherwise would have been an outstanding career.

[TheWatcher]

99. The Election Was Stolen.

But don't worry, The Beer, The Cheeseburgers, and American Idol will keep flowing.

Who needs Freedom when you have comfort?

Besides, Hillary will SAVE US.

:sarcasm:

[Pachamama]

100. Not So - My Mom in Florida was one of those who voted for Nader and would have voted for Gore had

Nader not been on the ballot and she later regretted voting for Nader and wish she had voted for Gore as she would have done.

Why did she vote for Nader? It wasn't because she didn't like Gore, its because she wanted to see a 3rd party like the Greens be able to make a showing. It was more her disgust with a 2 party system. But if Nader had not been in the race, she would have voted for Gore.

You state that people who voted for Nader wouldn't have voted at all and would have stayed home. Not so at all. My Mom has voted in every election since she could vote.

Even my Mom and some of her friends in Florida holds Nader responsible for losing those votes for Gore.

And I agree with her....I will always look at Nader and consider him responsible for those lost votes, and yes, while I believe the election was "stolen" in the recount process, without Nader, that wouldn't have been possible (or certainly would have been much much harder).

[alphafemale]

101. It should never have been close enough for them to steal it.

But it was. The entire campaign I was shouting at my TV. It was like Gore was Silly Putty man, changing each week for whatever political consultant had his ear.

It should have NEVER been close enough for them to steal.

[KG]

103. of course not.

introspection can be painful.

[Downtown Hound]

104. Nader was not the only factor

But he was a HUGE factor. And Gore would have won without him.

[malaise]

107. Gore himself said so

He knows he won despite Nader. Bush stole the election with help from the Supremes.

[deutsey]

108. Disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters, the unprecedented SCOTUS intervention,

GOP dirty tricks and physical/psychological intimidation, corporate media collusion, the poor recount strategy of the Dems in Florida...all these factors are more complex than the "It's Nader's Fault" meme, but I guess it's easier to scapegoat him than to address the "faceless" larger reasons for what happened in 2000.

[krkaufman]

153. Yes, those and many other factors...

... but none were so dependent upon one man's egotistical choice than Nader's.

Re: poor recount strategy... Even you fall to the misinformation. Florida's election laws didn't allow for Gore to simply call for a statewide recount, aside from the fact that the requested recounts were at the expense of the requesting campaign. The strategy was to recount the four Dem-leaning counties to determine if they would affect a change in the overall result; if not, there's no reason to recount further, if so, then that bridge can be crossed.

In the end, the entire state *was* slated for a recount -- but the Supreme Court prematurely stopped the counting of votes.

[deutsey]

158. Sorry, don't see it.

It was Bush/Rove behind-the-scenes machinations, a SCOTUS stacked with Reagan/Bush cronies, a bought-and-paid for corporate media, and the Dems' narrow focus on Democratic counties that did it. Even if your interpretation of their strategy is correct, the Dems were ineffective (as they always are) in making their case to the public and responding effectively to the coordinated GOP intimidation campaign occuring both on the airwaves and in the buildings where the recount was happening.

Nader's campaign may have had a marginal impact on Election Day, but not enough to help tilt the election, imo, like Perot did in '92.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

109. Repeating That To Yourself Won't Make The Guilt For Voting For Him Go Away.

Reality is, Nader was a HUGE factor in the debacle that led us to where we are today. Shame on him.

[smiley_glad_hands]

110. But he's certainly one of them. eom

[NeedleCast]

111. If it's any consolation

A third party will probably cost Republicans the white house in 2008.

[Virginia Dare]

112. Maybe not THE reason, but it was A reason...

I guess we'll never really know, we'll we? :shrug:

[JCMach1]

114. Virtually every 2000 election researcher wills say you are wrong... in fact he was the MAIN factor

[Richard Steele]

115. What a load. You are ridiculously incorrect. nm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

116. It's the "moderates" who voted for Bush that swung the election.

The Greens and Dems who voted for Nader were a negligible factor in 2000. Rather, it was the "moderates" independents or Democrats around the country that voted for Bush that gave us the outcome.

[Lil Missy]

117. Agreed. It's the Nader VOTERS to blame

[krkaufman]

154. Ha! Good one... n/t

[WinkyDink]

118. "The people who voted for Nader wouldn't have voted at all had Nader not run."

Says you and who else more credible?

[LWolf]

126. Of course Nader was not the reason for the Bush selection.

Even if Gore HAD lost, it wouldn't have been Nader's fault, or the fault of voters. It would have been the Gore campaign's fault, for not earning the votes. The Democratic Party does not help itself when it cannot accept responsibility for earning votes, or not.

He didn't "lose," though. Nader voters did not commit election fraud. They are not responsible for the theft.

The frantic, pathetic urge to go on the Nader attack is nothing more than a desperate need to deflect responsibility, place blame, define an enemy, and feed the frenzy of those demanding party loyalty regardless of whether or not a candidate has earned it.

When a DLC/corporate/unacceptable candidate is nominated, as is likely, there are those who know that many progressive votes are at risk. This is a strategy intended to bully those voters into compliance.

I didn't vote for Nader in 2000. I'm not voting for Nader in 2008. I'm not going to be bullied, though. My vote is earned, not owed, and no belligerent propaganda is going to change that.

[krkaufman]

156. "The frantic, pathetic urge to go on the Nader attack..."

Ummm... This thread was started by a frantic, pathetic need to negate Nader's effect in the 2000 election.

[LWolf]

170. Since he had no decisive effect,

the outcome being determined by election fraud and the supreme court, there is no need to negate his non-effect.

[Orsino]

128. Nader was one of many factors, ALL of which affected the outcome.

I'll buy not putting all the blame on him--I'm with you there--but pretending that he had no effect is just ludicrous.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

129. We Tend To Overintellectualize And Overanalyze Things On This Board....

There were a lot of reasons Gore "lost" Florida from the butterfly ballots in Palm Beach County to the spoiled ballots in heavily Democratic precincts in Duval County to a flawed Supreme Court ruling but if not for Nader's presence on the Florida ballot Gore would have won... Nader received some 97,000 votes... Surely not all of them would have stayed home or voted for Bush...Gore would have certainly received more than 535 of those votes cast...

[porphyrian]

134. Ooo, you're gonna get it from the Nader Haters...

But, you're pretty much correct. It's funny, the people who blame Nader first for 2000 seem to be pretty confident in their statistics, despite the overwhelming evidence that the election was stolen and never counted correctly in the first place. I guess it's easier to attack a Green than a republicant, or to admit that their strategy to sway the "undecided fence-sitting moderates" who never really manifested at the polls was a failure compared to the strategy of winning over non-voters.

[Uncle Joe]

141. The reason was because Al Gore championed the Internet.

So the MCM slimed him for taking some of their power and giving it to the people, this kept the race close enough for Bush to steal.

[AnnieBW]

142. Election fraud was the real reason

Read "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast.

[Sapere aude]

143. I believe that Nader took away votes from Gore in states where it really mattered.

I don't buy the idea that people who voted for Nader would not have voted if he were not running. If the bothered to vote at all I think they would have voted for anyone other than the repuke.

[ComerPerro]

146. So I guess I can offer anecdotal evidence as a rebuttal since that's all you have anyway

I know tons of people who, at the time, said they were considering voting for Gore but were going to vote for Nader instead.

I also know many people who were solid Dems and supporters of Gore and Clinton until a certain wannabe came along and started telling people that Bush and Gore were exactly the same. Suddenly, they either didn't want to vote for anyone or wanted to vote for Nader.

[wryter2000]

149. You had me in agreement until this statement

If people thought there was no difference between Gore and Bush, that was not Mr. Nader's fault

I suppose he wasn't out there every day saying exactly that.

[Alexander]

155. Nader was A reason, not THE reason.

The MSM was also a reason.

The SCOTUS was a reason.

Gore's handlers were a reason.

Nader was also a reason.

Therefore I hold just as much contempt for him as I do towards all the other people who prevented Gore from being POTUS.

[dogday]

161. Gore Lost?

When did this happen? I thought he won.. I also thought the Supreme Court stopped the counting and awarded the Presidency to the biggest moran of all time....

[ejbr]

167. I had a friend who gave me an unsolicited apology for voting for Nader.

He lived in Florida. I am certain that if we tried we could find 537 (or whatever the number was) Floridians who would have voted for Gore had Nader not been in the race. Ergo, Nader can be blamed for the mess we find ourselves in today. Sorry.

[leftofthedial]

168. did too

[HardRocker05]

169. good post. won't change the whiners' minds, though. nt