Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

erpowers

(9,350 posts)
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 10:52 AM Jun 2013

Ralph Nader Did Not Cost Al Gore the 2000 Presidential Election

Despite what some in the Democratic Party and on DU want to believe Ralph Nader did not cost Al Gore the 2000 election. The Bush family and the Supreme Court cost him the election. Yes, Ralph Nader ran in 1999-2000. However, Al Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 votes. In addition, he mostly would have won Florida, not if Ralph Nader had not run, but if Jeb Bush and his friends had not messed with the Florida electorate and the Supreme Court had not stopped the recount.

People need to remember that before the 2000 election then Florida governor Jeb Bush performed or called for a purge of the voter rolls. As a result of that purge many African-American who should have been eligible to vote were prevented from voting because their names were not on the voter rolls. In addition, the Gore team called for a recount, which was started, but the Bush team sued to have the recount stopped. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the recount should be stopped. Many people have said that if the recount had continued Al Gore would have won the election.

Finally, studies have been conducted that have shown that the majority, if not all, of the people who voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 election would not have voted for Al Gore. Therefore if you accept these studies Ralph Nader did not cost Al Gore any votes. If Ralph Nader had not run the people who voted for him would not have voted for Al Gore; they would have just stayed home and not voted.

In conclusion, for more than a decade Democrats have been blaming the wrong person. The people who should be blamed for the things that are happening, in America and around the world, that Democrats do not like are the Bush team, including Jeb Bush and the U.S. Supreme Court justices that voted to end the recount in Florida.

342 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ralph Nader Did Not Cost Al Gore the 2000 Presidential Election (Original Post) erpowers Jun 2013 OP
So true. Autumn Jun 2013 #1
Yep. And if we add the Reagan Democrats for Bush to that, Nader Zorra Jun 2013 #63
Wrong! Votes for Nader contributed to the outcome of the election! brush Jun 2013 #130
When the actual votes were all counted, Al Gore had won. Autumn Jun 2013 #139
When the votes are counted you don't have to win big. You just have to count the votes. Autumn Jun 2013 #190
Because it was so close they could get away with it. And they did. brush Jun 2013 #249
Yes that's what you said. Autumn Jun 2013 #251
Blah, Blah, Blah, BillyRibs Jun 2013 #293
Wrong. Nader was the SINGLE person who held the election in his hands. pnwmom Jun 2013 #185
I 100% Agree BehindTheCurtain76 Jun 2013 #287
Post removed Post removed Jun 2013 #2
+4 (the 4 votes in New Hampshire. RALPH Nader, THIS is YOUR legacy. You broke it, YOU own it. graham4anything Jun 2013 #7
That's a moronic postion and you should be ashamed for posting blather byeya Jun 2013 #11
The OP is ignoring history and the facts Gothmog Jun 2013 #166
The exit polls from 1992 do not support the claim that Perot threw the election to Bush (eom) StevieM Jun 2013 #215
yep libodem Jun 2013 #256
That is a factual position gcomeau Jun 2013 #179
I'm sure the US Supreme Court, Katherine Harris, or Jeb Bush had nothing to do with Bush winning. Apophis Jun 2013 #17
Not to mention confusing Palm Beach butterfly ballots. Fuddnik Jun 2013 #183
Which were agreed to by Democratic party election officials. former9thward Jun 2013 #198
The designer, Theresa LaPore, had been a registered Republican all her life. BlueCaliDem Jun 2013 #278
Regardless both parties signed off on it. former9thward Jun 2013 #329
Maybe you need to review that statement IF you're a Democrat: BlueCaliDem Jun 2013 #332
LOL former9thward Jun 2013 #338
Like I've already written in my post BlueCaliDem Jun 2013 #339
Yep. And other than Republicans and Republican Party supporters, no one believes otherwise. BlueCaliDem Jun 2013 #333
+1,000,000,000. Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #27
Is there a difference? momrois Jun 2013 #98
No one held a gun to Gore's head and forced him to concede. Gore chose to HardTimes99 Jun 2013 #126
I call them Paul-Bots! n/t aggiesal Jun 2013 #227
This thinking supposes that those Nader voters didn't have a say in the matter. mattclearing Jun 2013 #31
he did enough sniping with his blather, that there was no difference between both parties, and he still_one Jun 2013 #65
A politician campaigning... TommyCelt Jun 2013 #222
He was never a politician, never held elected office, and his only claim to being a BlueCaliDem Jun 2013 #279
What's your point? TommyCelt Jun 2013 #308
Doesn't matter. mattclearing Jun 2013 #325
What State(s) Did Nader Cost Gore? erpowers Jun 2013 #34
Florida. Which would have made Gore president. Pay attention. gcomeau Jun 2013 #64
100,000+ registered dems in FL voted for bush.. frylock Jun 2013 #111
Yep. gcomeau Jun 2013 #172
it was the reagan democrats that helped to swing the election for bush.. frylock Jun 2013 #181
One group helping swing it... gcomeau Jun 2013 #200
so what's your solution? frylock Jun 2013 #203
Ummmm.. gcomeau Jun 2013 #207
yeah, you're done, son. frylock Jun 2013 #210
Indeed. Glad you caught up. -eom gcomeau Jun 2013 #214
And the OP actually bothered to back up his argument nxylas Jun 2013 #298
Try reading the thread. gcomeau Jun 2013 #314
Can you prove your "fact?" ZombieHorde Jun 2013 #268
Yes. gcomeau Jun 2013 #272
The votes weren't Gore's... TommyCelt Jun 2013 #114
From what I remember of the race, Gore violated the first precept of HardTimes99 Jun 2013 #132
what I remember of the race also......... lunasun Jun 2013 #280
In other words gcomeau Jun 2013 #173
Don't "in other words" me... TommyCelt Jun 2013 #182
But it was. gcomeau Jun 2013 #195
Ralph Nader was not a Democrat. TommyCelt Jun 2013 #217
And I should care about that why? gcomeau Jun 2013 #221
OK...so continue your bitchin' TommyCelt Jun 2013 #224
It's an inescapable fact. cheapdate Jun 2013 #266
here you go hfojvt Jun 2013 #267
Too bad the people in Floriduh can't count. RoccoR5955 Jun 2013 #66
We can count just fine demwing Jun 2013 #91
Heaven forbid we actually honor the concept of democracy newthinking Jun 2013 #88
"... close enough for the repukes to steal it". Hosnon Jun 2013 #99
Not illegal, just dumb demwing Jun 2013 #147
Succinct. And correct! +1000! nt MADem Jun 2013 #100
Wow, what an open-minded response. Not! I certainly understand your despite need to rhett o rick Jun 2013 #102
I've never understood why some alsame Jun 2013 #3
I also blame ANY ONE who did NOT vote for Jimmy Carter in 1980. ANY ONE. graham4anything Jun 2013 #8
Yes, but that's a different issue. I don't think 1980 was alsame Jun 2013 #15
that came after NH and the 4 electoral votes that would have given Al Gore 270. graham4anything Jun 2013 #26
"never again will any true democratic supporter ever vote third party." Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #32
That is for sure /nt still_one Jun 2013 #70
+1,000. That cannot be said often enough. Begone, ratfuckers. freshwest Jun 2013 #233
Needs a capital D to be truthful. eom TransitJohn Jun 2013 #299
I know, why cover for the Felonious Five? I don't get that either. The SC stole sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #13
third way dems datasuspect Jun 2013 #21
LOL ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2013 #49
Over the years, especially during Bushco, alsame Jun 2013 #96
Some of us can walk and chew gum and blame multiple people at once ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2013 #153
In that case, I am clearly not referring to alsame Jun 2013 #202
even gore, who personally shut down the black caucus protest HiPointDem Jun 2013 #289
Gore was shamed into giving up ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2013 #320
'shamed'. if he can be 'shamed' into giving up an election he *won,* what would he be as HiPointDem Jun 2013 #335
It was over....there was no out left for him ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2013 #336
vote fraud isn't an out? legal challenge isn't an out? protest isn't an out? gore curled up HiPointDem Jun 2013 #337
When the votes were counted after the corrupt court, Al Gore had won the election. Autumn Jun 2013 #53
If Nader had not run... Nitram Jun 2013 #86
The Anti-LABOR, Free Trading, Deregulating, "Centrist" Clinton Administration CREATED Nader. bvar22 Jun 2013 #142
Bingo! Exactly right. RufusTFirefly Jun 2013 #158
Yes. What we suffered and continue to suffer is nothing less than a corporate coup. raouldukelives Jun 2013 #170
+1 HiPointDem Jun 2013 #290
Fucking-A. TransitJohn Jun 2013 #300
People are attempting to re-write history Gothmog Jun 2013 #164
Better go tell Al Gore, bvar22 Jun 2013 #223
Bush* wasn't elected or re-elected. TransitJohn Jun 2013 #301
it prevents cognitive dissonance when Dems provide the sine qua non votes for the IWR MisterP Jun 2013 #157
nailed it! frylock Jun 2013 #188
Yes. nt alsame Jun 2013 #204
You're right, however... TDale313 Jun 2013 #4
Studies have been conducted that have shown that ... Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #5
No one needs studies to know that the SC stole the 2000 election. Everyone knows that, even sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #18
So why make this about Ralph Nader? No Nader, no SC decision. Period. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #35
Thread Winner!!!! I guess it's true that a picture is worth a thousand words. Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #37
Thanks for cleaning up the room! LOL at that graphic! freshwest Jun 2013 #234
The issue is New Hampshire, not Florida Recursion Jun 2013 #6
No, the issue is that the SC committed a treasonous act and installed someone who lost an sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #20
I guess the new DU loves Nader... tridim Jun 2013 #9
Looks more like the new DU loves the criminals on the SC who stole an election and sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #25
There Reasons erpowers Jun 2013 #50
Nader has very progressive policy positions Maedhros Jun 2013 #121
No, he expresses very progressive policy positions jeff47 Jun 2013 #159
He supports progressive policies Maedhros Jun 2013 #187
Exactly Right. bvar22 Jun 2013 #213
Correct. MrSlayer Jun 2013 #10
Yes he fucking did. LaydeeBug Jun 2013 #12
You are full of the last word in your post byeya Jun 2013 #16
No, I'm not. You are a revisionist. nt LaydeeBug Jun 2013 #29
This.^^ Skidmore Jun 2013 #19
Nader had zero to do with the 2000 election theft. Gore won, so how do you explain that? sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #28
Zero?? RockaFowler Jun 2013 #36
If Gore wanted the votes that went to Nader Maedhros Jun 2013 #125
+10000! Blaming Nader is a pathetic loser tactic beneath the dignity of true Democrats RufusTFirefly Jun 2013 #155
Did you even read my post? Wow LaydeeBug Jun 2013 #38
So a politician lied about something? Show me one who hasn't. That has zero to do with the crime sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #60
Bullshit "it had zero to do with the crime". He drove the fucking getaway car. nt LaydeeBug Jun 2013 #83
No, he didn't. I've never been a Nader supporter, but he had as much right to campaign winter is coming Jun 2013 #90
Yes... he did. LaydeeBug Jun 2013 #109
Nader wasn't responsible for the butterfly ballot, or the Brooks Brothers mob, or the SC decision. winter is coming Jun 2013 #122
He was responsible for making it close enough for those to matter. jeff47 Jun 2013 #161
Nope. If he'd had no appeal, he'd have gotten no votes. winter is coming Jun 2013 #176
You might want tailor your reply to the post you are replying to. jeff47 Jun 2013 #184
Nader's actions are a reason not to take him seriously, winter is coming Jun 2013 #189
oh fuck that. "Gore quells challenge to Bush win" HiPointDem Jun 2013 #291
That was after the theft occurred, and you know it. nt LaydeeBug Jun 2013 #313
The theft was ongoing, and Gore shutting up the challenge was part of it. HiPointDem Jun 2013 #334
He made it close enough to steal... tinrobot Jun 2013 #171
Yes. Gore won the election and it was stolen from him, He did not put up much of a fight either. byeya Jun 2013 #14
those are the facts G_j Jun 2013 #22
If Nader hadn't run, Gore would have been president bhikkhu Jun 2013 #23
That election would have been stolen if Nader had never existed. Bush was appointed and would sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #33
Again, this is bullshit. Nader helped them steal it, and no amount of posturing changes that. nt LaydeeBug Jun 2013 #41
BS. The election had to be close enough to steal bhikkhu Jun 2013 #48
"Keep that in mind whenever the repugs put money into a left-leaning third-party candidate." Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #44
Stein, who said she sort of wanted Romney to win.... ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2013 #54
They only help the Republicans, which is why I despise them so much. Nader knew exactly what... Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #105
This. n/t lumberjack_jeff Jun 2013 #55
and if my aunt had nads, she'd be my uncle.. frylock Jun 2013 #193
Not what the UMICH study I saw in 2002 said... JCMach1 Jun 2013 #24
there's plenty of blame to go around carolinayellowdog Jun 2013 #30
What those who are trying to cover for the SC are saying is that we do not have a democratic sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #39
Gore would have won NH - and that would have made him President without Florida karynnj Jun 2013 #40
Interesting that those who blame Nader votores never mention markiv Jun 2013 #42
I guess is you say it enough times some people might believe you but most of us know OregonBlue Jun 2013 #43
Another excellent post! Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #47
How many third party voters will rec this thread? freshwest Jun 2013 #235
I hate the fuckers! They're too lazy and/or stupid to build their own infrastructure, so.... Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #236
Yup, libertarians love to get stuff for free. Skinner's site is too good not to steal. freshwest Jun 2013 #237
Ralph played his part in the Perfect Storm ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2013 #45
"Fuck Bush, Fuck the SCOTUS, Fuck Nader, Fuck Jill Stein, and Fuck the Greenies". Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #51
Oh, also.... ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2013 #57
Basically... TommyCelt Jun 2013 #123
Pretty much!!! Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #127
Your Uncle Adolf would be proud... TommyCelt Jun 2013 #137
You leave my Uncle Adolf alone!!!!!! Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #150
Seriously, THD.... TommyCelt Jun 2013 #154
Tell it, PTBBIR!!! freshwest Jun 2013 #238
Just imagine if Nader had appeared on a platform with Gore a few days before the election. Nye Bevan Jun 2013 #46
Exactly. moondust Jun 2013 #67
We don't agree all the time, I agree with this. graham4anything Jun 2013 #82
That's a nice thought, but ... Martin Eden Jun 2013 #259
Imagine if Nader had been allowed to debate Gore burnodo Jun 2013 #261
When one cannot win their own freaking home state bigwillq Jun 2013 #52
His freaking home state thinks Marcia Blackburn is worthy of elected office. ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2013 #58
His home state voted for Clinton/Gore in 1996 bigwillq Jun 2013 #95
Because his home state is stupid? ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2013 #156
Where they stupid in 1996? bigwillq Jun 2013 #192
Our governor is a backwards moron, too Rob H. Jun 2013 #321
and Clinton ran far more conservative than Gore was seen by 2000 JI7 Jun 2013 #230
Correct rock Jun 2013 #56
not by himself he didn't.. to say he wasn't a big factor in it is ludicrous... dionysus Jun 2013 #59
Anyone who thinks he did is lazy, stupid or a republican. morningfog Jun 2013 #61
well said and so true. bbgrunt Jun 2013 #148
+1, nails it. Corruption Inc Jun 2013 #231
There was more than just Florida that was lost cause nader was on the ballot. This is his legacy, still_one Jun 2013 #62
Nader put Florida within stealing distance arely staircase Jun 2013 #68
President Obama won re-election decisively RufusTFirefly Jun 2013 #162
I think he is an awesome president arely staircase Jun 2013 #163
Whether he did or not... NaturalHigh Jun 2013 #69
who said he didn't have that right? arely staircase Jun 2013 #73
Yes, it was his right, and he ignored overtures from the Democratic party to work with him if he still_one Jun 2013 #76
500,000 more votes is not enough to win. We needed Naders voters too ...in la la land. L0oniX Jun 2013 #71
Considering one of the biggest and nastiest trolls on this site used that as his battle cry Hydra Jun 2013 #72
The people who voted for Ralph Nader cost Gore the election. lastlib Jun 2013 #74
Yup, and they can't live with it, so they create posts like the OP. gulliver Jun 2013 #247
Only if they would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't ran. ZombieHorde Jun 2013 #269
97,400 Nader votes in FL. Bush won by 537. sofa king Jun 2013 #75
100,000+ registered Dems voted for Bush in Fl... TommyCelt Jun 2013 #119
Which alters the figures you were responding to HOW? -eom gcomeau Jun 2013 #177
what do you think? frylock Jun 2013 #194
That it *didn't*. Hence my question. -eom gcomeau Jun 2013 #196
so 97,000>100,000+? frylock Jun 2013 #199
No... gcomeau Jun 2013 #201
i'm rolling them at you.. frylock Jun 2013 #206
If you insist... gcomeau Jun 2013 #208
Bush won by 537? burnodo Jun 2013 #264
Yeah, I think it means that much. sofa king Jun 2013 #282
Somehow Nader and Nader voters are more responsible burnodo Jun 2013 #304
Yes, they are. sofa king Jun 2013 #331
Wow. Now I understand the heat on this issue. Thanks for the stats. freshwest Jun 2013 #275
Bull. Shit. gcomeau Jun 2013 #77
But the world is so much easier Le Taz Hot Jun 2013 #78
F*ck Nadir. n/t BlueToTheBone Jun 2013 #79
Maureen Dowd is as much to blame for Gore's loss as is Nader Orrex Jun 2013 #80
Both things can be true at the same time Just Saying Jun 2013 #81
My god iandhr Jun 2013 #84
by odin's beard, 100,000+ registered dems voted for bush in FL!!1 frylock Jun 2013 #197
I have a DU censor vote to prove that he did. Coccydynia Jun 2013 #85
If Gore sabbat hunter Jun 2013 #87
and the moon is made of green cheese! whistler162 Jun 2013 #89
Still feeling guilty? Renew Deal Jun 2013 #92
No erpowers Jun 2013 #218
It's not one or the other, it's both. They both get the blame - Supreme Court AND Nader. Dawgs Jun 2013 #316
No erpowers Jun 2013 #317
But Nader and the Supreme Court are two completely different things. Dawgs Jun 2013 #319
Lieberman had a larger effect than Nader. nt. NCTraveler Jun 2013 #93
Let's ask him the next time he comes out of his hole. TheCowsCameHome Jun 2013 #94
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2013 #97
And Strom Thurmond was once JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #140
What did 'Name Removed' say? Someone turned on the... freshwest Jun 2013 #241
It means JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #245
There are people who will never accept the truth of what you say Cal Carpenter Jun 2013 #101
and...it is totally anti-democratic to blame a participant in this so-called democracy noiretextatique Jun 2013 #103
"Butterfly ballot" in Palm Beach County cost Gore hundreds of votes davidn3600 Jun 2013 #104
He was part of the problem riqster Jun 2013 #106
wtf? how can people deny facts and history so blithely? cali Jun 2013 #107
+1000 n/t ColesCountyDem Jun 2013 #112
Nader cost Gore the election Democat Jun 2013 #115
well, Nader and the Supreme Court. Gore won cali Jun 2013 #118
WTF? Gore did win and the SC stole it, regardless of Nader Corruption Inc Jun 2013 #232
Here Is An Article erpowers Jun 2013 #243
His math is baloney. Jim Lane Jun 2013 #265
Nader's presence on the ballot made this theft possible Zambero Jun 2013 #108
FLAW: The question about Nader-voters not otherwise voting for Gore, is in retrospect. Had there WinkyDink Jun 2013 #110
Thank you! City Lights Jun 2013 #113
Even if he did, that's the price we pay for democracy stupidicus Jun 2013 #116
WTF are we doing worrying about 13 years ago????? groundloop Jun 2013 #117
Never could have gone to the SCOTUS without Nader. caseymoz Jun 2013 #120
Bullshit. The studies showed that Gore would have had a plurality of 12,000 votes BEFORE SCOTUS. onehandle Jun 2013 #124
rbn JEFF9K Jun 2013 #128
People have been voting against their own interest long before Faux News ever came to light. demosincebirth Jun 2013 #141
Are we still talking about Nader? mzmolly Jun 2013 #129
+1 meegbear Jun 2013 #133
And let's not forget the US Senate, either. Kerry, Feingold, not one Democrat would stand up Egalitarian Thug Jun 2013 #131
Please explain where would those votes for Nader had gone to if he hadn't run for president that demosincebirth Jun 2013 #134
This is accurate. PDittie Jun 2013 #135
those who insist on blaming Nader are like Faux News viewers who just bbgrunt Jun 2013 #136
Florida may not have been the deciding state upaloopa Jun 2013 #138
This post was alerted on. The jury voted 5/1 to let it stand. ohiosmith Jun 2013 #143
A toast for The Jury! bvar22 Jun 2013 #216
Cheers! ohiosmith Jun 2013 #226
I always say that Bush LittleGirl Jun 2013 #144
******>>>>> Here's your official Nader Jury Results limpyhobbler Jun 2013 #145
sorry dem loyalists but the gore lieberman ticket SUCKED! boilerbabe Jun 2013 #146
You're correct. Nader didn't cost Gore the election. But it's heresy to say that here... truth2power Jun 2013 #149
This discussion is so turn of the century Tobin S. Jun 2013 #151
deja vu helps me remember that DU had plenty of pointless arguments even in the good old days carolinayellowdog Jun 2013 #252
if Nader wasnt on the ballot Gore would have been president. Nader gave us bush. Period. bowens43 Jun 2013 #152
Exactly. That's a fact the Naderites still refuse to accept BlueCaliDem Jun 2013 #281
You'll never get anywhere with this.. Al Gore himself told me it wasn't Nader that cost him SomethingFishy Jun 2013 #160
He said the same thing in an interview with Jon Stewart, bvar22 Jun 2013 #219
I blame Obama. SpankMe Jun 2013 #165
Always the safest position on DU... freshwest Jun 2013 #242
you forgot the biggest player of them all RedstDem Jun 2013 #167
Nader? Cronus Protagonist Jun 2013 #168
Video of W and Jeb Bush saying they're going to win in FL is in Fahrenheit 9/11. n/t Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #169
Yes he did. One of the 99 Jun 2013 #174
I never did blame Ralph Nader. Enthusiast Jun 2013 #175
Why is it so hard for some to understand.... Whiskeytide Jun 2013 #178
May Ralph rot in the obscurity he so richly deserves surrounded by fawning syncophants Rowdyboy Jun 2013 #180
Ralph Nader Should Rot in Hell louis c Jun 2013 #186
You might be in that position but Nader won't. former9thward Jun 2013 #205
This. n/t jtuck004 Jun 2013 #294
Ralph Nader will be remembered for the 2000 election louis c Jul 2013 #340
Who am I? former9thward Jul 2013 #341
Just like Ralph Nader, you are confusing opinions for facts louis c Jul 2013 #342
Gore needed 2/3 of 1 percent of Nader's FL votes krawhitham Jun 2013 #191
you will not convince those who keep blaming Nader because they always blame the left and suck up to yurbud Jun 2013 #209
Revisionism! Coyotl Jun 2013 #211
If Bill Clinton hadn't hired Dick Morris and told progressives to get bent Adenoid_Hynkel Jun 2013 #212
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2013 #220
I completely disagree jmowreader Jun 2013 #225
Well, I voted for Gore. But lets face it, he ran a poor campaign. HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #228
Excellent post, reality apparently hurts some people's minds Corruption Inc Jun 2013 #229
If wishing made it so, you would be right. Unfortunately the facts make you wrong. nt stevenleser Jun 2013 #239
+1 freshwest Jun 2013 #276
The Usual Suspect always derailed the 2000 Theft Rex Jun 2013 #240
there were many factors but Nader was definitely one of them Skittles Jun 2013 #244
apples to oranges, it was all of the above but Nader was part of it Hamlette Jun 2013 #246
Yes he did. Itchinjim Jun 2013 #248
Bull. Count on your fingers. MrModerate Jun 2013 #250
Gore should have appealed to the voters he lost rather than the usual fuckwittery of TheKentuckian Jun 2013 #253
I see a lot of folks … 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2013 #254
OK... but Nader's still an asshole. nt Gidney N Cloyd Jun 2013 #255
Nader's not an Asshole. Martin Eden Jun 2013 #257
Those dang Gore voters cost Nader the Presidency. JEB Jun 2013 #258
A question for you about the "studies" Jim Lane Jun 2013 #260
Your points are quite irrelevent. Nader lied. grantcart Jun 2013 #262
Yes. He. Did. Give me a fucking break. Fuck Nader and the Naderfucktards. we can do it Jun 2013 #263
Gore lost Tennessee, West Virginia and New Hampshire rpannier Jun 2013 #270
As William Shatner would say: BootinUp Jun 2013 #271
No defense but finger pointing creeksneakers2 Jun 2013 #273
Horse manure. The blood of Afghanistan and Iraq is on Nader's hands Gman Jun 2013 #274
you mean to tell me those 22000 people in New Hampshire.. LSK Jun 2013 #277
without Nader's bullshit sad-cafe Jun 2013 #283
Sorry, but he did. Rooting for the Dems Jun 2013 #284
I absolutely disagree with you. Nader cost Gore NH and FL. Look at the exit polls and the results.. hrmjustin Jun 2013 #285
Rec # 100. nt Bonobo Jun 2013 #286
i think gore cost nader the election. makes about as much sense. elections don't 'belong' HiPointDem Jun 2013 #288
I know your are right, but it's as Pearls Before Swine. BillyRibs Jun 2013 #292
Ralph Nader is a media whore......... 4bucksagallon Jun 2013 #295
I partly blame Nader. Hell B Calm Jun 2013 #296
We would be living in abject paradise. burnodo Jun 2013 #305
Correct. Orsino Jun 2013 #297
Love all the strawman arguments Rain Mcloud Jun 2013 #302
I hope you mean the straw men used to support the contention of this OP. great white snark Jun 2013 #309
Wow! Are we so bored we have to fight over this again? It reminds me... TreasonousBastard Jun 2013 #303
Yes he did. And because of that his legacy to America is now a gigantic net minus. mikekohr Jun 2013 #306
You can't rewrite history, if not for Nader there would NOT have been Supremes intervention DainBramaged Jun 2013 #307
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! grattsl Jun 2013 #310
Not this shit again. Iggo Jun 2013 #311
Nonsense JGug1 Jun 2013 #312
Ralph Nader pulled enough votes from Gore to enable Bush to steal the election. UCmeNdc Jun 2013 #315
Kicking the hornet's nest, eh? gtar100 Jun 2013 #318
Correct. nt LWolf Jun 2013 #322
I love when this topic comes up on DU... Javaman Jun 2013 #323
The fix was in. There is NO WAY the Petroleum Mafia was going to allow Al Gore to ... Raster Jun 2013 #324
Nader doesn't run, then Gore wins. Is that so fucking hard to understand???? HERVEPA Jun 2013 #326
RALPH NADER LIED and CIVIL RIGHTS DIED. Both statements are 100% verifiable and true. graham4anything Jun 2013 #327
As I've been saying for 12+ years... Xithras Jun 2013 #328
Think how much better off we would be today JEB Jun 2013 #330

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
63. Yep. And if we add the Reagan Democrats for Bush to that, Nader
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:36 AM
Jun 2013

had relatively little effect on the outcome of that election.

I suspect that most of the people that voted for Nader were not registered Democrats and were generally Third Party voters to begin with.

If we add the plus minus factor of the conservative Reagan Democrats who voted for Bush, we are hit with a double whammy, Gore losing the same amount Democratic votes that Bush gained.

Here are some notable examples:

Democrats for Bush
http://democratsforbush.blogspot.com/

brush

(53,467 posts)
130. Wrong! Votes for Nader contributed to the outcome of the election!
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:41 PM
Jun 2013

If he hadn't been in it it wouldn't have been close enough to steal, which is what we worried about just recently in 2012. We had to win big enough so Rove and his gang couldn't steal it.

Autumn

(44,743 posts)
139. When the actual votes were all counted, Al Gore had won.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:53 PM
Jun 2013

bush was APPOINTED by a corrupt supreme court. There was no way in hell, counts or not Jeb and the Harris pig would give FL to Gore. And the Democrats leaders were strangely enough silent.

Autumn

(44,743 posts)
190. When the votes are counted you don't have to win big. You just have to count the votes.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:59 PM
Jun 2013

The supreme court stopped the count and appointed Bush. When the votes were finally counted Al Gore had won.

brush

(53,467 posts)
249. Because it was so close they could get away with it. And they did.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 08:02 PM
Jun 2013

Without Nader taking votes it wouldn't have been so close.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
185. Wrong. Nader was the SINGLE person who held the election in his hands.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:55 PM
Jun 2013

Other problems -- the hanging chad ballots, the Republican secretary of state's purging of ballots, etc. -- would not have changed the outcome of the race IF ONLY Nader hadn't drawn 97,000 votes in an election determined by 500. And if Gore had won in Florida, the case wouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court. Progressives at the time urged him to not run in the swing states, but instead that's where he put most of his efforts, saying that Bush and Gore were Tweedledum and Tweedledee. He enjoyed his moments in the spotlight, and we've been suffering from them ever since.

Response to erpowers (Original post)

Gothmog

(143,998 posts)
166. The OP is ignoring history and the facts
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:30 PM
Jun 2013

This attempt to rewrite history is sad and ignores the fact. Nader is the reason that Bush was elected. Perot was the reason why Clinton was able to defeat GHW Bush in 1992. The GOP funded Nader for the sole reason of trying to steal the 2000 election

 

Apophis

(1,407 posts)
17. I'm sure the US Supreme Court, Katherine Harris, or Jeb Bush had nothing to do with Bush winning.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:07 AM
Jun 2013

No. Not at all.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
278. The designer, Theresa LaPore, had been a registered Republican all her life.
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 12:45 AM
Jun 2013

Up until she ran for Supervisor, that is. She was and has never been a Democrat. She was a Republican plant, just like the so-called protesters at the recount, dubbed the Brooks Brothers, sent by Congressman "Kickass" John Sweeney, a New York Republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

former9thward

(31,798 posts)
329. Regardless both parties signed off on it.
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:46 AM
Jun 2013

Complaining after you agreed to something just because you don't like the outcome has little effect.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
332. Maybe you need to review that statement IF you're a Democrat:
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 01:53 PM
Jun 2013
The ballot that altered U.S. history
By Randy Schultz, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 18, 2001

(excerpt): Let's dispel one myth. The county's Democratic and Republican parties didn't "sign off" on the butterfly ballot, as Mr. Bush's spinmeisters got away with claiming last year. The parties don't have to approve the ballot.

Democratic officials never saw the ballot in the voting machine. The elections supervisor just has to get the names right and in order. Other supervisors told The Post that Ms. LePore never showed them her plan for putting all the candidates on two pages, and that if she had, they would have warned her about confusion.
http://www.bartcop.com/1120vote.htm


But I'm certain that the Bush spinmeisters, as Randy Schultz calls them, is grateful for your support in continuing to spread the lie.

former9thward

(31,798 posts)
338. LOL
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 03:41 PM
Jun 2013

Maybe IF you are a Democrat you might put a fact or two in your posts. When the shit hits the fan all of a sudden everyone says "Who me"? "I had nothing to do with that!"

Something more accurate:

From the day after the election --- Florida election officials from both parties have called the ballot straightforward
[Palm Beach County] Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore, a Democrat, insisted any confusion was unintentional and defended the layout of the cluttered ballots as necessary to get all the presidential candidates on facing pages while making the type large enough for [elderly] voters to read.

She also said that if it was so confusing, someone should have pointed it out to her earlier. "We sent out sample ballots to all registered voters, and no one said a word," she said.


http://jerz.setonhill.edu/design/usability/use-ballot.htm

No one said a word. But here it is 13 years later and you are still defending incompetence. Were you one of those officials?...

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
339. Like I've already written in my post
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 08:34 PM
Jun 2013
. . . I'm certain that the Bush spinmeisters, as Randy Schultz calls them, is grateful for your support in continuing to spread the lie.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3103067


You can lead a Republican to facts, but you can't make them think.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
333. Yep. And other than Republicans and Republican Party supporters, no one believes otherwise.
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 01:58 PM
Jun 2013

See my post here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3103067

It contains a link to a very well thought-out article written by Palm Beach Staff Writer, Randy Schultz, and it dispels the lies about Florida 2000 that's still being propagated by some on this site, and what had been originated by Bush spinmeisters, as he calls them.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,207 posts)
27. +1,000,000,000.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:14 AM
Jun 2013
And besides that, I hate fuckin' Greens more than I hate Paultards, and I'm pretty sure that goes for many Democrats. They gave us Bush, and have been bitching about the direction of the country ever since. Fuck them. They were complicit in the election debacle. The attacks on Gore were much more vicious than Bush, and that makes them complicit in everything that followed. They have the blood of innocents on their hands, and that makes me despise them even more.
 

HardTimes99

(2,049 posts)
126. No one held a gun to Gore's head and forced him to concede. Gore chose to
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:37 PM
Jun 2013

accede to the questionable institutional legitimacy of the Supreme Court, rather than force a constitutional crisis.

So can't one say that Gore too has the 'blood of innocents' on his hands?

Likewise, the U.S. Senate that laid down and played dead rather than accept the challenge put to it by the House's Congressional Black Caucus to not accept the Electoral College tallies.

I think your anger is understandable, but a bit mis-directed. I'm angry at myself that I didn't drop everything and go to Florida to fight the Bush and Baker brownshirts in the streets. In a way, I have been doing penance for my failure ever since (or at least from 2001-09).

mattclearing

(10,091 posts)
31. This thinking supposes that those Nader voters didn't have a say in the matter.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:16 AM
Jun 2013

Nader didn't take anything. The person who stole votes in Florida was Katherine Harris.

Telling people to grow the fuck up is really mature.

still_one

(91,937 posts)
65. he did enough sniping with his blather, that there was no difference between both parties, and he
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:37 AM
Jun 2013

made sure he was on as many state ballots as he could to insure he would be the spoiler.

He succeeded

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
279. He was never a politician, never held elected office, and his only claim to being a
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 12:48 AM
Jun 2013

politician was running for president.

Sad that you can't see the difference.

TommyCelt

(838 posts)
308. What's your point?
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 07:57 AM
Jun 2013

OK..."A 'political candidate' campaigning for President. The BASTARD."

Better?

And yeah. It's sad. Amazing I can sleep at night....

mattclearing

(10,091 posts)
325. Doesn't matter.
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:02 AM
Jun 2013

Al Gore still won the popular vote and the Florida vote despite extensive vote suppression tactics by the Republican Secretary of State. Ralph Nader didn't stop the vote count, he didn't do a bogus felon purge, and he isn't to blame for Al Gore not reaching the White House.

erpowers

(9,350 posts)
34. What State(s) Did Nader Cost Gore?
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:17 AM
Jun 2013

If one looks at the state by state breakdown it can be seen that in most of the states in which George W. Bush beat Al Gore Bush won by a healthy margin. Nader gained less than 3 million votes. So, how would those 3 million votes have helped Al Gore win the election. Would Gore really have won New Hampshire if Nader would not have run in 1999-2000? What other state would Gore have won with Nader out of the race?

 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
64. Florida. Which would have made Gore president. Pay attention.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:36 AM
Jun 2013

Bush was 'certified' as having beat Gore by a little over 500 votes in the state.

Nader took NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND VOTES in Florida, the clear majority of which would have gone to Gore. It would have been clear out of stealing range.

No Nader = No President Bush.

Period. No question.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
111. 100,000+ registered dems in FL voted for bush..
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:17 PM
Jun 2013

are YOU paying attention? are they not as culpable as you believe Nader voters were in costing Florida for Gore?

frylock

(34,825 posts)
181. it was the reagan democrats that helped to swing the election for bush..
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:52 PM
Jun 2013

you are in denial of that fact.

 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
200. One group helping swing it...
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 02:14 PM
Jun 2013

...doesn't negate another group helping swing it.

Nader runing = Bush win.
Nader not Running = Gore win.

Fact.



Yes, you can ALSO say:

Reagan Democrats voting Bush = Bush Win
Reagan Democrats voting Gore = Gore win.

Doesn't alter the first point however. So no, I'm not the one in denial of fact.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
203. so what's your solution?
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 02:17 PM
Jun 2013

to log onto a chat board and piss and moan thirteen years later? to prevent people from exercising their constitutional right to run for president, or cast aspersions on those who don't fall into lockstep with you? let's hear it.

 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
207. Ummmm..
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 02:21 PM
Jun 2013

The OP claimed Nader didn't cost Gore the Presidency.

He did. That's a fact.

My "solution" to the posting of an infactual OP was pointing out the fact. I'm all done now.

nxylas

(6,440 posts)
298. And the OP actually bothered to back up his argument
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 06:09 AM
Jun 2013

Putting the word "FACT!" after a statement is not the same as quoting statistics and polls in order to give weight to your statements. This isn't just addressed to gcomeau, by the way, all the posts blaming Nader in this thread and elsewhere seem remarkably fact-free.

 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
314. Try reading the thread.
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 09:12 AM
Jun 2013

I for one have pointed out multiple times that exit polls of Nader voters showed 45% said they would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't run. 27% for Bush. The rest neither.

That's a 20,000 vote swing in Florida and That Is The Election.

Fact.

 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
272. Yes.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:51 PM
Jun 2013

Exit polls had 45% of Nader voters reporting they would have voted Gore if he hadn't run. 27% for Bush. Remainder said neither

That would have put Gore up over TWENTY THOUSAND votes in Florida. That's the election.

I repeat. Fact.

TommyCelt

(838 posts)
114. The votes weren't Gore's...
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:18 PM
Jun 2013

Pay attention.

If Mr. Blah-Milquetoast Gore couldn't convince enough people to vote for him (no matter if it was instead of Bush, Nader, Buchanan, etc.), that's HIS fault and HIS failure.

Woulda/Coulda/Shoulda doesn't fly in sports and doesn't fly in politics. And whiny, Monday morning quarterbacking is just as usesless in politics as it is in sports. Especially 13 years later.

 

HardTimes99

(2,049 posts)
132. From what I remember of the race, Gore violated the first precept of
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:46 PM
Jun 2013

American politics which is that one first locks down one's base before moving to the center. Instead, Gore tried to move to the center immediately, taking his base for granted and leaving him exposed on his left flank to a left-wing 'spoiler'. But you're absolutely right that the failure was Gore's and his campaign team's for failing to secure his base.

That said, though, Gore actually won Florida, as a study published by the major print media on 9-10-2001 (!) demonstrated. No matter how ballots were counted, no matter what methods were used to qualify or disqualify ballots, in a manual recount of all Florida ballots, Gore wins handily. So much for one man, one vote. Gore contributed to the perception that he was merely 'gaming the system,' when his campaign asked only that the ballots in 4 counties be recounted rather than a full state-wide recount.

TommyCelt

(838 posts)
182. Don't "in other words" me...
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:52 PM
Jun 2013

It oughtn't to have been nearly that close. More registered democrats voted for Bush in FL than all of the Nader votes. They're just as culpable.

The 2-party political system, not to mention the electoral college, sucks and is beyond broken. The US Presidential Election of 2000 demonstrated that all too well.

Whining "We woulda won if we only had gotten more votes". Brilliant.

 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
195. But it was.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 02:11 PM
Jun 2013

And Nader knew damn well which candidate he was siphoning the majority of any voters he managed to pull away from. And he did it anyway. And it swung the election.

None of those facts are debatable.

TommyCelt

(838 posts)
217. Ralph Nader was not a Democrat.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 03:06 PM
Jun 2013

I don't understand why you are bemoaning - 13 years after the fact - that Ralph Nader didn't have the best interests of Al Gore's presidential campaign in mind??? Al Gore was his political OPPONENT. A 3rd party candidate as a matter of course is going to smack around the "establishment" candidates, because that's the only way to generate some noise if you don't have a D or R after your name.

Gore couldn't shut him up enough. If the RNC bought him off, the DNC needed to buy him back (if you think the DNC doesn't throw the dirty money around just like their RNC brethren, I have a bridge to sell you).

Welcome to American politics. Gore's inept campaigning let an upstart garner enough votes to let W close. Cronies in Florida and a partisan Supreme Court did the rest. Quitcherbitchin and move on.

 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
221. And I should care about that why?
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 03:10 PM
Jun 2013

The OP said he didn't cost Gore the election.

He did., thus giving us president Bush.

That is an act worthy of anger regardless of his political identity.

TommyCelt

(838 posts)
224. OK...so continue your bitchin'
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 03:13 PM
Jun 2013

Makes no difference to me.

Gore will still be runner-up in 2000. Go figure.

cheapdate

(3,811 posts)
266. It's an inescapable fact.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:15 PM
Jun 2013

All other things being equal, Gore would've won Florida if Nadar wasn't in the race. And yet, people here are trying to somehow argue a way around that fact. It can't be done, really.

God bless Ralph Nadar. He's a man of stern principles. He did what he believed was right and he's never apologized for it.

But, again, all other things being equal, he cost the Democratic candidate (Gore) the race and he bears a large measure of the responsibility for George W. Bush's win in 2000.

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
267. here you go
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:29 PM
Jun 2013
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/118

Yes, Gore would have won New Hampshire. Gore would have won Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, and New Mexico by much more comfortable margins. Minnesota too. Gore could then have devoted more resources to Nevada and Tennessee forcing Bush to devote more resources to those states.

Also, you claim that studies have shown that Nader voters (on the left, presumably) for some reason would not have voted for Gore had Ralph not been on the ballot trying to help Bush win.

Yet, I note you don't bother to link to any of those supposed studies.

You also spend all your time talking about Florida, as if New Hampshire does not matter As if Oregon does not matter, as if New Mexico does not matter as if Wisconsin does not matter as if Iowa does not matter.

If Nader had taken just another 17,000 votes or so, then BUSH would have won New Mexico (366), Iowa (4,144), Wisconsin (5,708), Oregon (6,765) - boom 30 electoral votes for Bush.

Matters at least as much as Florida's 25 electoral votes.
 

RoccoR5955

(12,471 posts)
66. Too bad the people in Floriduh can't count.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:37 AM
Jun 2013

Otherwise we would have never gotten another Bush in the White House!

 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
91. We can count just fine
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:56 AM
Jun 2013

when all the votes are there to count.

Too bad the people in Rosendull can't figure that out.

newthinking

(3,982 posts)
88. Heaven forbid we actually honor the concept of democracy
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:52 AM
Jun 2013

and respect that some people decided to make a principled choice over a pragmatic one.

There is so much wrong about this attitude. It wreaks of what is bringing us to destruction. Corruption of our democratic values.

Added: I voted for Gore.

Hosnon

(7,800 posts)
99. "... close enough for the repukes to steal it".
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:02 PM
Jun 2013

Don't forget whose fault it actually was.

Neither Nader nor his voters did anything illegal

 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
147. Not illegal, just dumb
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:01 PM
Jun 2013

Yeah he has the right to run, but having a right doesn't preclude the fact that exercising said right can be a stupid move.

I have the right to drink a gallon of vodka every morning before breakfast. Just because I can, doesn't mean I should.

I don't think Nader "cost" Gore the election. No single thing cost Gore the election, but Nader absolutely contributed to that loss, and based on his statements at the time, did so purposefully.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
102. Wow, what an open-minded response. Not! I certainly understand your despite need to
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:06 PM
Jun 2013

find one single person to blame and you demand others to fall in line. Reminds me of my brother-in-law.

alsame

(7,784 posts)
3. I've never understood why some
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 10:55 AM
Jun 2013

DUers seem to give the 2000 SCOTUS a pass on this horrific election theft.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
8. I also blame ANY ONE who did NOT vote for Jimmy Carter in 1980. ANY ONE.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:01 AM
Jun 2013

JIMMY CARTER DID NOT NOMINATE SCALIA/ALITO/KENNEDY
and Al Gore would NOT have nominated Alito/Roberts

Tell me again-
did Ronald Reagan, Ford, Bush41 and Bush43 name Sotomayer, Kagan, Ginsberg and Breyer???

alsame

(7,784 posts)
15. Yes, but that's a different issue. I don't think 1980 was
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:07 AM
Jun 2013

stolen. The American people made a horrendous choice and the results are still with us today.

But what went on in FL and SCOTUS in 2000 was election theft, pure and simple.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
26. that came after NH and the 4 electoral votes that would have given Al Gore 270.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:13 AM
Jun 2013

12/12/2000 comes AFTER 11/2000

Thank God, though for Ralph Nader's monumental lie, because never again will any true democratic supporter
ever vote third party.

That is Ralph's legacy. He singlehandedly destroyed any thought of a 3rd party ever gaining anything.

At some point, there might be a different one of two parties, but thanks to Ralph Nader- the two party system
will last forever

And today's decision is going to mobilize the democratic party for a midterm like never before.

President Obama's voters(the REAL voters) waited 8 to 10 to 14 hours on line to vote.

They shall do that in 2014.

the democratic party just won the house.

imho.

and it goes without saying in 2016, it shall be the biggest landslide ever.
Did I say 100 million votes for Hillary? 125? No, maybe 150 million voters will vote for Hillary.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
13. I know, why cover for the Felonious Five? I don't get that either. The SC stole
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:06 AM
Jun 2013

an election for Bush. Nader had nothing to do with it.

 

datasuspect

(26,591 posts)
21. third way dems
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:10 AM
Jun 2013

don't want anyone to co-opt any left wing populist sentiment.

it's easy enough for them to place left wing populism/activism into a shunt and call them "fucking retarded" like their hero Rahmulus Tiny Dancer did.

god forbid they would ever give creedence to outside voices that speak to causes and conditions.

ProudToBeBlueInRhody

(16,399 posts)
49. LOL
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:24 AM
Jun 2013

Why don't you show us some posts "giving them a pass"?

Everyone played a part in the instillation of Dumbya into office in 2000.

alsame

(7,784 posts)
96. Over the years, especially during Bushco,
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:00 PM
Jun 2013

there were numerous "Fuck Nader" threads, which oversimplifies the issue, IMO. I just find it disturbing that some people are more upset with a third party vote than with a corrupt SCOTUS.

And no, I did note vote for Nader

ProudToBeBlueInRhody

(16,399 posts)
153. Some of us can walk and chew gum and blame multiple people at once
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:12 PM
Jun 2013

You're using the proliferation of the "Fuck Nader" threads as proof there are no threads saying fuck the court.

alsame

(7,784 posts)
202. In that case, I am clearly not referring to
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 02:16 PM
Jun 2013

you, so please don't take it personally.

But yes, there are some people who want to only blame Nader for the SCOTUS decision. Indirectly, that blames voters instead of the fascists on the court.

IMO, if we have democratic elections, then anyone should be allowed to run for office and voters should feel free to vote for whatever party they choose without worrying that their vote will enable election theft by the SCOTUS.

"They wouldn't have been able to steal it if the election wasn't so close because of Nader"...but they did steal it. Gore had enough to win if the votes had been counted.

Yes, the Nader votes siphoned from Gore, but so did Democratic votes for Bush. And those butterfly ballots in FL that mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan. And the people that didn't bother to vote because they didn't like either Gore or Bush. There was a perfect storm of fustercluck in 2000, but ultimately GWB was appointed by the court.

ProudToBeBlueInRhody

(16,399 posts)
320. Gore was shamed into giving up
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:14 AM
Jun 2013

The media allowed the narrative to become "He needs to concede for the betterment of the nation", to save his chances in 2004.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
337. vote fraud isn't an out? legal challenge isn't an out? protest isn't an out? gore curled up
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 02:18 PM
Jun 2013

& said 'uncle,' contributing to the perception that what happened was ok.

Autumn

(44,743 posts)
53. When the votes were counted after the corrupt court, Al Gore had won the election.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:27 AM
Jun 2013

They tend to forget that. Yes, they give them a pass and blame it on Nader.

Nitram

(22,663 posts)
86. If Nader had not run...
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:47 AM
Jun 2013

...the Supreme Court would not have had the opportunity to steal the election for Bush. No one is giving the Supreme Court a pass when they blame Nader.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
142. The Anti-LABOR, Free Trading, Deregulating, "Centrist" Clinton Administration CREATED Nader.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:58 PM
Jun 2013

If Clinton had governed as a Democrat,
then No Nader.

Vacuums are filled, in Physics AND Politics.
Its The LAW.


[font size=3]
"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."

---President Harry Truman
QED:2010[/font]


raouldukelives

(5,178 posts)
170. Yes. What we suffered and continue to suffer is nothing less than a corporate coup.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:41 PM
Jun 2013

It will only end when people put the future of their children, nature & wildlife ahead of their portfolios. So, yeah. Never.
The void will continue to expand.

Gothmog

(143,998 posts)
164. People are attempting to re-write history
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:27 PM
Jun 2013

The claim that Nader is not responsible for the bush election win is simply wrong. Nader is the reason why bush was elected and re-elected. Nader put his own interests over that of the country and the country suffered.

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
157. it prevents cognitive dissonance when Dems provide the sine qua non votes for the IWR
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:18 PM
Jun 2013

or unite in a thunderous roar to approve of Israelis attacks and outright murder
even better, they can absolve Fox, Katherine Harris, and Jeb--I mean, these are the same people who've lied constantly since 2001: saying that Iraq was a good move for the Dems, that the insurers are scared shitless by Baucuscare, that the NDAA doesn't target Americans, that the NSA isn't watching us and that it's good that they're watching us
remember that before they were blaming poutraged Firebaggers for 2010 they were blaming gays, FFS!
the only thing they like about Gore is that they can use him to blame Nader: they're not even personality-cultists, they're strictly working drag the party further right by changing the terms of discussion and controlling the political language: this doesn't have to be one in an Orwellian or hegemonic sense, but spreads enough talking points to shift discourse altogether (like how Marxist analysis has been shut out since '49, leaving us with a spectrum ranging from white supremacists thinking Obama did Sandy Hook to people taking their inspiration from that soppy cardboard Jesus from THX-1138 lauding him for opposing gay marriage for 3 years but not 4)

TDale313

(7,820 posts)
4. You're right, however...
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 10:57 AM
Jun 2013

those still using this to try and rein in those they see as out-of-line lefties aren't gonna be swayed by pesky facts.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
5. Studies have been conducted that have shown that ...
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 10:57 AM
Jun 2013

... unverified studies can prove whatever you want.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
18. No one needs studies to know that the SC stole the 2000 election. Everyone knows that, even
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:08 AM
Jun 2013

those trying to cover for that treasonous act by pointing fingers elsewhere. That's why they do it, to try to cover for a crime so big it would have finished the Republican Party forever.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
6. The issue is New Hampshire, not Florida
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 10:57 AM
Jun 2013

There are a lot of what-if's:

No '94 assault weapons ban, Gore would have won Tennessee
No blue dress, Gore would have won Arkansas
No Nader, Gore would have won New Hampshire

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
20. No, the issue is that the SC committed a treasonous act and installed someone who lost an
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:10 AM
Jun 2013

election in place of the winner.

Gore won the election, so there is no point in attempts to distract from the treasonous act committed by the SC.

tridim

(45,358 posts)
9. I guess the new DU loves Nader...
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:01 AM
Jun 2013

Lots of defending him lately, for no apparent reason. Just random, out of the blue defenses.

Is LaRouche or Rand Paul support the next phase of the DU takeover?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
25. Looks more like the new DU loves the criminals on the SC who stole an election and
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:13 AM
Jun 2013

in doing so, committed a treasonous act.

I think Scalia started this 'point over there' campaign. He refuses to discuss that 'ruling' and becomes quite angry when people try to question him about it. Why would a SC justice not want to talk about ruling they made if it was legitimate? Because HE knows what they did.

Ralph Nader had nothing to do with the theft off the 2000 election. Gore won, so it's pointless to continue to try to distract from the facts. I don't understand it either.

erpowers

(9,350 posts)
50. There Reasons
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:24 AM
Jun 2013

People at DU are not defending Ralph Nader "for no apparent reason". There have been a number of people, in the last few days, starting discussions blaming Ralph Nader for the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
121. Nader has very progressive policy positions
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:32 PM
Jun 2013

As a progressive, I find it very reasonable to defend that. More reasonable than defending authoritarian policy positions.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
159. No, he expresses very progressive policy positions
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:19 PM
Jun 2013

When the rubber meets the road, he harms progressive policies. He fights progressives as insufficiently pure instead of fighting Republicans.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
187. He supports progressive policies
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:57 PM
Jun 2013

and criticizes Democrats when they push conservative ones. That's fine in my book. If nobody takes the Democratic party to task for its rightward drift, then it will keep doing so.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
213. Exactly Right.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 02:44 PM
Jun 2013

There are some here who LIKE this rightward drift.

As hard as they fight to continue the rightward drift,
support Republican Policies,
and demonize anyone to the Left of Reagan,
it makes me believe they are the old "Reaganites" come home to Obama.

Obama says he'd be seen as moderate Republican in 1980s
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s

 

LaydeeBug

(10,291 posts)
12. Yes he fucking did.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:05 AM
Jun 2013

The only argument that can be made is that Nader could not cost what was STOLEN from Al Gore, but he certainly said he wasn't going to campaign in Florida, and then he fucking did, saying there is no difference between the parties, so please don't try to switch it up now.

Bullfuckingshit.

Skidmore

(37,364 posts)
19. This.^^
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:09 AM
Jun 2013

Nader and his moral equivalency BS has contributed to continuing the justification on the left for disenfranchisement of people. Ralph was wrong.

RockaFowler

(7,429 posts)
36. Zero??
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:18 AM
Jun 2013

Do you live in Florida??

Because I remember the fiasco here and the votes that not only went his way, but went the way of Pat Buchanan

There were a ton of things wrong with Florida and the election of 2000, but to say that Nader had nothing to do with it is really putting your head in the sand.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
125. If Gore wanted the votes that went to Nader
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:35 PM
Jun 2013

he could have earned them. That is how a democracy functions. Blaming someone else for running is antithetical to the concept of free elections.

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
155. +10000! Blaming Nader is a pathetic loser tactic beneath the dignity of true Democrats
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:17 PM
Jun 2013

Nader ran and got votes because there were obviously some people disenchanted with the corporate-suckup Third Way that the Democratic Party was taking. (By the way, that's also the reason that Nader couldn't possibly have endorsed Gore. It would've meant making a mockery of the very principle he ran on, namely that both parties were -- and are -- beholden to their corporate paymasters.)

Rather than responding to this disenchantment, the corporate Democrats dug in their heels and looked for scapegoats instead.

By the way, don't confuse the NAFTA-loving, government re-inventing Gore who ran against Bush in 2000 with the private citizen who speaks up today.

And, above all, don't forget that the election was stolen and that when all the votes in Florida were properly counted, Gore won.

No amount of scapegoating is going to turn these profoundly disturbing facts into falsehoods.

 

LaydeeBug

(10,291 posts)
38. Did you even read my post? Wow
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:18 AM
Jun 2013

He masqueraded around saying he "just wanted to get to the federal funding level" and then said he would not campaign in Florida because everyone knew Jeb was up to something. Then he fucking did.

You don't get to revise what I lived through.

FUCK that.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
60. So a politician lied about something? Show me one who hasn't. That has zero to do with the crime
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:31 AM
Jun 2013

that installed Bush in the WH.

Airc, there was something about Obama making promises like that btw, or was it Hillary and then changing their minds. Happens in every election, it has nothing to do with who wins or who doesn't. That's just politics.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
90. No, he didn't. I've never been a Nader supporter, but he had as much right to campaign
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:54 AM
Jun 2013

wherever and however he chose as Gore did. The attitude that Nader somehow "took" votes that "belonged" to Gore is ass-backwards: Gore failed to get those votes; they were never "owed" to him. The same goes for people who believe that the Dem party was "betrayed" by voters who stayed home in 2010: the Dem party is not entitled to those votes; it has to earn them. Blaming your losses on people not showing up to vote for you is asinine. If you can't inspire voters to turn out for you, the problem is with you.

 

LaydeeBug

(10,291 posts)
109. Yes... he did.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:15 PM
Jun 2013

Gore did not fail to get the votes...he WON the fucking election. He was indeed OWED the votes he fucking earned, and Nader helped them steal it from him.

It's really that simple.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
122. Nader wasn't responsible for the butterfly ballot, or the Brooks Brothers mob, or the SC decision.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:33 PM
Jun 2013

He campaigned for, and won, a portion of the electorate that Gore failed to secure. Whether those Nader voters were deluded or delusional is irrelevant. Gore failed to sell them on his candidacy. Period.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
161. He was responsible for making it close enough for those to matter.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:22 PM
Jun 2013

Nader talks a lovely game.

He doesn't follow through. He spends the vast majority of his time fighting Democrats as insufficiently pure instead of fighting Republicans. As a result, he helps Republicans. Repeatedly.

Either he's an idiot who can't recognize the consequences of his actions, or he's not who he claims to be.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
176. Nope. If he'd had no appeal, he'd have gotten no votes.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:49 PM
Jun 2013

If Gore had had stronger appeal, it might not have been close enough for Bush to manipulate. Over and over, I've seen overtones or explicit statements indicating that Nader shouldn't have run. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone assert that Gore should have run a stronger campaign. Nader was merely a focus for the belief that there wasn't an appreciable difference between Gore and Bush. I spoke to a number of people back in 2000 who had zero interest in or respect for Nader who believed that there wasn't much difference between Bush and Gore. Gore failed to dispel that myth and that's what hurt him.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
184. You might want tailor your reply to the post you are replying to.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:54 PM
Jun 2013

Nader's actions repeatedly fail to advance the causes he claims to support. Including campaigning in Florida after promising not to do so.

But that pattern has repeated itself on many occasions: His actions do not match his words.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
189. Nader's actions are a reason not to take him seriously,
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:57 PM
Jun 2013

not a reason to blame him for the shortcomings of the Gore campaign.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
291. oh fuck that. "Gore quells challenge to Bush win"
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 03:37 AM
Jun 2013

Closing the book on the tumultuous 2000 election, a good-natured Vice President Al Gore methodically blocked his supporters' attempts yesterday to prolong the drama and proclaimed George W. Bush the nation's 43rd president.

"I must object because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct" in his state, said Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, a Florida Democrat, before he was shouted down by Republicans yelling, "Point of order! Point of order!"

More than a dozen Democrats followed suit, seeking to force a debate on the validity of Florida's vote on the grounds that all votes may not have been counted and that some voters were wrongly denied the right to vote.

Republicans objected, saying debate was not allowed during the session. But it was Gore, in his role as president of the Senate, who repeatedly stopped the Democrats' efforts, banging his gavel to interrupt his supporters. And as Gore politely knocked down one Democratic objection after another, the mood turned almost farcical.

"The chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois. But, hey," Gore told Illinois Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr., signaling that there was nothing left that could be done to reverse the closest presidential election in the nation's history. Democrats and Republicans chuckled.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2001-01-07/news/0101070059_1_gore-florida-democrat-black-caucus-members


"good-natured" gore let the black caucus spin in the wind.

tinrobot

(10,848 posts)
171. He made it close enough to steal...
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:41 PM
Jun 2013

...and definitely had some effect on the outcome.

There were many reasons it happened, Nader was just one of those.

 

byeya

(2,842 posts)
14. Yes. Gore won the election and it was stolen from him, He did not put up much of a fight either.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:06 AM
Jun 2013

West Virginia: Senator Robert Byrd in this state was not a god but he was the closest thing to it. He promised Gore that if he spent one day touring WV with Sen Byrd, he - Byrd - could guarantee Gore would carry WV. Gore passed up Byrd as he passed up help from President Clinton.

bhikkhu

(10,708 posts)
23. If Nader hadn't run, Gore would have been president
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:13 AM
Jun 2013

how about if we say it that way instead? Bush may have stolen the election in the end, but he never would have had the opportunity if Nader hadn't run.

Keep that in mind whenever the repugs put money into a left-leaning third-party candidate.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
33. That election would have been stolen if Nader had never existed. Bush was appointed and would
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:16 AM
Jun 2013

been appointed regardless of who ran or who won.

Nader had zero to do with the theft of that election.

 

LaydeeBug

(10,291 posts)
41. Again, this is bullshit. Nader helped them steal it, and no amount of posturing changes that. nt
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:19 AM
Jun 2013

bhikkhu

(10,708 posts)
48. BS. The election had to be close enough to steal
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:24 AM
Jun 2013

and Nader is the one who made that possible.

The only reason I can think for re-writing history at this point is to justify doing the same stupid-ass third party thing over again, imagining it will work out fine.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,207 posts)
44. "Keep that in mind whenever the repugs put money into a left-leaning third-party candidate."
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:22 AM
Jun 2013

Jill Stein just wasn't up to the job. True Democrats learned & internalized the lessons of 2000.

ProudToBeBlueInRhody

(16,399 posts)
54. Stein, who said she sort of wanted Romney to win....
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:27 AM
Jun 2013

Because Obama was "articulate" and therefore could sway people away for Greeny causes.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,207 posts)
105. They only help the Republicans, which is why I despise them so much. Nader knew exactly what...
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:08 PM
Jun 2013

he was doing, and why Repukes were pouring money into his coffers. He & Jill Stein are still useful idiots for rightwing teabaggery.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
193. and if my aunt had nads, she'd be my uncle..
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 02:06 PM
Jun 2013

who gets to decide who can run and who can't? you?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
39. What those who are trying to cover for the SC are saying is that we do not have a democratic
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:18 AM
Jun 2013

system and while it's okay for the SC to steal an election, it is not okay for any citizen who chooses to do so, to run for office in this country. That is a specious argument. Nader acted legally, therefore had zero to do with that crime. The SC acted illegally and stole an election handing it to THEIR choice of candidate. To deny that is to contribute to sweeping a massive crime under the rug.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
40. Gore would have won NH - and that would have made him President without Florida
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:19 AM
Jun 2013

That race was closer than the Nader votes.

I give you that it was cheating in Florida and the Supreme Court allowing that, but Nader is part of both the NH and the Florida loss. You could argue that he had a right to run - however, his running did help Bush.

 

markiv

(1,489 posts)
42. Interesting that those who blame Nader votores never mention
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:20 AM
Jun 2013

(and no, I didnt vote for Nader)

- Bill Bradly, who tore Gore down in the primary

- Gore's choice of Neocon Lieberman, who didnt even stary with the party (who'd not 'loyal to the party?!?!?)

- Gore's horrible campaigning, it was all about distancing himself from Clinton's scandal, instead of taking credit for (what looked like, but was soon to be shown as an illusion) the best streatch of prosperity in a generation

- the fact that nobody 'owes' a vote to anyone, espeacilly someone who just supported a massive increase in H-1b guest workers that were about to smash members of tech occupations (Gore support s2045, to increase h-1b to the outragious level of 195,000 per year in 2000, the month before the election)

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
235. How many third party voters will rec this thread?
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 05:48 PM
Jun 2013
Way to keep the ratfucking going.

As someone wrote on another thread:


'The vote in 2014 won't get depressed without help!'

LOL.




Tarheel_Dem

(31,207 posts)
236. I hate the fuckers! They're too lazy and/or stupid to build their own infrastructure, so....
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 05:53 PM
Jun 2013

instead they try to co-opt ours. Fuck them, and the Repuke enabling horse they rode in on.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
237. Yup, libertarians love to get stuff for free. Skinner's site is too good not to steal.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 05:58 PM
Jun 2013
All your DU are belong to us!!

ProudToBeBlueInRhody

(16,399 posts)
45. Ralph played his part in the Perfect Storm
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:22 AM
Jun 2013

And he's fucking proud of it too. Because the philosophy of the Greenies is that despite their whining of "BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME!!!!", they need a rethug in there to generate real outrage and therefore dollars. Jill Stein as much as admitted it last year.

Fuck Bush, Fuck the SCOTUS, Fuck Nader, Fuck Jill Stein, and Fuck the Greenies.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,207 posts)
51. "Fuck Bush, Fuck the SCOTUS, Fuck Nader, Fuck Jill Stein, and Fuck the Greenies".
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:25 AM
Jun 2013

I wish I had gold stars to pass out!

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
238. Tell it, PTBBIR!!!
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 06:01 PM
Jun 2013


Last interview I heard Nader trashing Obama, he had that same gravely way of spitting out his name as Rush, Jones, O'Reilly and Hannity.

Just dripping with vitriol and disdain, can't even let the word come out without the hate. Wonder if they all practice gargling together...

Oh, we see you Ralphie, and we don't even need those sunglasses. We see you.



Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
46. Just imagine if Nader had appeared on a platform with Gore a few days before the election.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:22 AM
Jun 2013

They shook hands and took turns speaking. Gore acknowledged that Nader had raised some important issues and thanked him for a vigorous campaign. Nader thanked Gore and his supporters, acknowledged that while it was not realistic that he could win, Gore was certainly better than Bush, and so he urged his supporters to throw their support to Gore in the election.

No Florida recount. No President GW Bush. Probably no 9/11 and no Iraq war. And I would actually have ended up respecting Nader.

moondust

(19,917 posts)
67. Exactly.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:37 AM
Jun 2013

I don't know exactly what Nader hoped to gain by doggedly staying in the race to the bitter end, even accepting Republican support to do so. I wondered if maybe he wanted to exact revenge on the Democratic Party for not recognizing and accepting him as its future "Great Leader" or something.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
82. We don't agree all the time, I agree with this.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:43 AM
Jun 2013

It is not only the ones who voted, it is the ones who because of his words, just stayed home and didn't care.

Martin Eden

(12,802 posts)
259. That's a nice thought, but ...
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 10:47 PM
Jun 2013

... I think most Nader supporters disillusioned with the Democratic Party would have viewed that as a huge betrayal and kick in the teeth to the Green movement they were hoping would gain momentum.

 

bigwillq

(72,790 posts)
52. When one cannot win their own freaking home state
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:25 AM
Jun 2013

and when one makes a horrible VP pick
and when one ran a poor campaign


But let's blame Nader.

BWAH

 

bigwillq

(72,790 posts)
95. His home state voted for Clinton/Gore in 1996
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:00 PM
Jun 2013

if Gore wins TN in 2000, Gore is the prez. But Gore failed to win his home state. I blame Gore for that one.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
61. Anyone who thinks he did is lazy, stupid or a republican.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:32 AM
Jun 2013

To take that position is to legitimize bush and the Supreme Court opinion.

still_one

(91,937 posts)
62. There was more than just Florida that was lost cause nader was on the ballot. This is his legacy,
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:33 AM
Jun 2013

and rightfully deserved

NaturalHigh

(12,778 posts)
69. Whether he did or not...
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:37 AM
Jun 2013

it was his right to run. Do the Nader-haters really think they get to decide who runs for president. If so, what's the point of elections in the first place?

arely staircase

(12,482 posts)
73. who said he didn't have that right?
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:39 AM
Jun 2013

people have the right to do all sorts of counterproductive \, destructive things.

still_one

(91,937 posts)
76. Yes, it was his right, and he ignored overtures from the Democratic party to work with him if he
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:40 AM
Jun 2013

would support Gore, but he threw that back in their face, actually received donations from republicans, and played beautifully into their game to be the spoiler he was

Hydra

(14,459 posts)
72. Considering one of the biggest and nastiest trolls on this site used that as his battle cry
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:38 AM
Jun 2013

You'd think we'd have buried that by now.

Al Gore won Florida, and SCOTUS handed the Presidency to the Bush admin.

We can't really be sure of what would have happened anyway. Look what happened with this Admin? We had one of the worst environmental disasters ever, a continuation of Bush war policies, NSA out of control...even when we "win" we lose.

lastlib

(22,978 posts)
74. The people who voted for Ralph Nader cost Gore the election.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:39 AM
Jun 2013

The Five Supremes sealed the deal. may they rot in hell enjoying their payoff from their corpo-rat masters.

gulliver

(13,142 posts)
247. Yup, and they can't live with it, so they create posts like the OP.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 07:22 PM
Jun 2013

Nader voters in Florida just need to deal with the fact that they are responsible for the Bush presidency. And the Nader voters in other states helped give Nader the platform that encouraged the Florida Nader voters. You vote a certain way, you take the blame for the results. People who voted for Bush were just as culpable for Bush as the Nader voters.

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
269. Only if they would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't ran.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:39 PM
Jun 2013

And only if the election wasn't a selection.

 

burnodo

(2,017 posts)
264. Bush won by 537?
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:02 PM
Jun 2013

I thought the election was stolen. Wasn't there something about voter-roll purging and Katherine Harris? Wasn't it something like 97,000 people excluded from voting? ...mostly African Americans? Do you think that 537 under these circumstances means that much?

sofa king

(10,857 posts)
282. Yeah, I think it means that much.
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 12:55 AM
Jun 2013

If less than one percent of Nader voters in Florida made a practical choice in favor of their own fucking agenda, their own fucking agenda would not be a forgotten shambles of a joke about to sink beneath the waves along with half of their state.

Their choices led directly to the complete reversal of two dozen environmental policies that Democrats certainly would have maintained. A massive percentage of America's "wetlands" are now golf course water hazards and farm ponds.

Tell me with a straight face that Nader was right, that there was no difference between the parties, and that Al Gore would do that.

It was right there in front of them. They, however, cynically lodged a vote of complaint, and destroyed America as a result. I hope every last one of 'em has found some way to forgive themselves, because I never will, and I am not alone.

 

burnodo

(2,017 posts)
304. Somehow Nader and Nader voters are more responsible
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 06:37 AM
Jun 2013

than Democrats, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Joe Freakin Lieberman, Republicans, the Supreme Court, etc. It really seems like this Nader hatred is a desperate attempt to deflect the blame for 2000 away from those who need to be held accountable. And this pie-in-the-sky "everything would have been PERFECT if Al Gore had become president!" Look at Barack Obama.

sofa king

(10,857 posts)
331. Yes, they are.
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 01:39 PM
Jun 2013

The Nader people were one-issue swing voters who had a clear choice between the two viable candidates and their own spoiler in a dead-heat race. They chose their guy, and therefore automatically lodged a vote for the winner, who was the worst possible candidate to represent their interests, and ours.

This is not a dry civics lesson from middle school. In 2000, Nader voters got to see every day how that worked, anytime they saw or heard President Bill Clinton, who defeated an incumbent candidate with the help of a third party.

So fuck them, and yeah, fuck the Dems in Florida who didn't vote, and the turncoats, and the soldiers and sailors who illegally filled out absentee ballots after the polls closed.

But only the Nader voters were single-issue voters who had an obvious choice.

If the entire rest of humanity is doomed to extinction thanks to human-caused climate change, Nader voters should get the majority of scorn for that too. A human-less planet will be the last silent monument to their cause--that's how fucking important it was.

Edit: Goddammit, I ain't done yet. Nader voters had a larger responsibility to their cause. Their cause demanded that they make an easy choice in favor of Al Gore. Their cause suffered as a result of not making that easy choice. And now, they deserve no credit whatsoever for recognizing the seriousness of climate change, because by their votes they showed that while the cause may have been serious, they were not.

 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
77. Bull. Shit.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:40 AM
Jun 2013

Nader took a little over 97,000 votes in Florida. Nader voters who were polled said if he hadn't run they would have gone 45% to Gore, 27% to Bush with the remainder not voting for either.

That's the election. Clear out of stealing range. President Gore right there. So you're full of it.

Should the people who undermined the voting process ALSO be blamed? Damn right, but Nader rightly take a big portion of the responsibility for us getting stuck with Bush for eight freaking years.

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
78. But the world is so much easier
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:40 AM
Jun 2013

to deal with when we whittle all things complex down to binary choices. Excellent post. Sad to say it will fall on deaf ears. They'd re just not willing/capable of deeper thinking and understandind.

Orrex

(63,083 posts)
80. Maureen Dowd is as much to blame for Gore's loss as is Nader
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:42 AM
Jun 2013

The last step in a failed journey is seldom responsible for the entire failure. It's convenient to blame Nader (and I did so, for several years), but the reality is that other factors had equal or greater weight in contributing to the stolen election.

Just Saying

(1,799 posts)
81. Both things can be true at the same time
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:43 AM
Jun 2013

I think the GOP plan had been to win by 1000 tiny cuts. Some redistricting here. A little voter suppression there. And if a 3rd party candidate takes some votes, all the better!

iandhr

(6,852 posts)
84. My god
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:47 AM
Jun 2013

Nader got 97,488 votes in FL Bush "won" by 537.

Without Ralph. Bush and the SCOTUS would not have been able to steal the election.

In addition Ralph helped Bush win New Hampshire.

Those four votes would have gave Gore 270.


sabbat hunter

(6,825 posts)
87. If Gore
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:48 AM
Jun 2013

had won his home state, then florida would have been irrelevant. You have to go back a ways to find someone who won the presidency and lost their home state. (state of residence not birth)

Nixon 1968 - lost NY
Woodrow Wilson 1916 - lost NJ
Polk 1844 - lost TN

you need to win your home state to win the presidential election.

erpowers

(9,350 posts)
218. No
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 03:07 PM
Jun 2013

I did not vote for Ralph Nader in 2000. Not everyone who refuses to blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore's 2000 loss voted for him. Some people look at what Jeb Bush and the U.S. Supreme Court did. Why would you give more weight to Ralph Nader running in 1999-2000 than to Jeb Bush purging African-Americans from the voter rolls and the Supreme Court stopping the recount. If Jeb Bush would not have purged legal voters from Florida's voting rolls Al Gore most likely would have won Florida. Many have said if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the recount Al Gore would have won the state of Florida.

 

Dawgs

(14,755 posts)
316. It's not one or the other, it's both. They both get the blame - Supreme Court AND Nader.
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 09:34 AM
Jun 2013

Why are you trying to insist that it was JUST the Supreme Court that gave the election to Bush? Isn't that just as bad as those that solely blame Nader?

erpowers

(9,350 posts)
317. No
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 09:49 AM
Jun 2013

It is not the same as those who solely blame Ralph Nader. If Jeb Bush had not purged the names of African-Americans from the voter rolls Al Gore might have won Florida. In addition, if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed the recount to continue Al Gore might have won. Even with Ralph Nader in the race if Jeb Bush had not purged voter from the rolls and the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed the recount Al Gore might have won.

 

Dawgs

(14,755 posts)
319. But Nader and the Supreme Court are two completely different things.
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:08 AM
Jun 2013

The Supreme Court stealing the election for Bush has NOTHING to do with people being upset for Nader's contribution to Gore losing.

And his contribution was a LOT MORE than just the votes.

TheCowsCameHome

(40,161 posts)
94. Let's ask him the next time he comes out of his hole.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:00 PM
Jun 2013

You know, the one he hibernates in for 46 months at a time.

Response to erpowers (Original post)

Cal Carpenter

(4,959 posts)
101. There are people who will never accept the truth of what you say
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:06 PM
Jun 2013

It is much easier to scapegoat someone like Nader than deal with the evident problems within the Dem party and its ability to run good candidates and stay strong on good platforms.

There is no alternate reality in which enough of the Nader voters 'would have' voted for Gore.

The longer so many Dems hold onto this scapegoating, the further they get from helping the party become what it needs to be if they want it to be an actual agent of change.

noiretextatique

(27,275 posts)
103. and...it is totally anti-democratic to blame a participant in this so-called democracy
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:06 PM
Jun 2013

especially considering the coup orchestrated by the GOP. in a sane country, that insane party would no longer exist, and some of the conspirators would be in jail. not in ameri-DUH.

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
104. "Butterfly ballot" in Palm Beach County cost Gore hundreds of votes
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:06 PM
Jun 2013

The way it was set up caused confusion. And if you didn't read it carefully enough, you may have voted for Pat Buchanan by accident.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
106. He was part of the problem
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:09 PM
Jun 2013

Along with voter disenfranchisement, election rigging, the Bushies, the Supremes, and a few others,

But always remember: Nader was at least partially financed by the Reeps. And he publicly stated that he hoped for a Budh victory. That pretty much makes him a Bush supporter (yes, different reasons, but still a Bush partisan).

So yeah, Nader deserves his share of the blame.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
107. wtf? how can people deny facts and history so blithely?
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:10 PM
Jun 2013

In Florida, had Nader not run, Gore would have won decisively. No contested election, no Supreme Court intervention in the election.

Even if your claim that the majority of those who voted for Nader wouldn't have voted for Gore is true, Gore still would have won. The claim that NONE of those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore, is so patently absurd that it deserves nothing but contempt. And you provide exactly zero evidence for these claims. None. Zilch. Nada.

Revisionist history of the lamest kind.

 

Corruption Inc

(1,568 posts)
232. WTF? Gore did win and the SC stole it, regardless of Nader
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 05:08 PM
Jun 2013

That's the history, that's what happened. Deny history all you want, it doesn't change it.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
265. His math is baloney.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:08 PM
Jun 2013

He goes off on who voted for Perot, on registered Dems voting for Bush, etc. These are all distractions. He also looks at a hypothetical two-person race -- removing Gore's Nader problem but also removing Bush's Buchanan problem.

Cut through all that drip and goo. The simple question is: If Nader had not been on the ballot, what would his 97,000 or so voters have done? Specifically, what would have been the "Gore swing" -- the number of those people who would have voted for Gore minus the number who would have voted for Bush.

Clearly, as the author himself comes close to admitting, that number would have been more than 600. It would have been so much more, in fact, that it would have put the state out of reach of Jeb's maneuvering. Gore would have been declared the winner in Florida and would have become President.


OBLIGATORY DISCLAIMERS. I'm not disputing any of the following so please don't waste pixels arguing with straw men: Nader had a right to run. Katherine Harris wrongfully disenfranchised 50,000 or so voters, mostly Democrats. The butterfly ballot was a problem. Gore did not run a perfect campaign. The Supreme Court decision was an outrage. The media were complicit. In sum, Nader's decision to run in the general election was not the sole cause of the Bush presidency.

Zambero

(8,954 posts)
108. Nader's presence on the ballot made this theft possible
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:14 PM
Jun 2013

He had every right to run, few would dispute that. However, few would dispute that the lion's share of Nader's votes would have otherwise gone to Gore, whose victory margin in Florida would increased to a point where Jeb Bush and puppet-on-a-string Attorney General Harris could not have successfully tampered with and rigged the results. Yes indeed, they stole it. And yes, a partisan U.S. Supreme Court aided and abetted the election theft. And yes, Nader's ability to siphon progressive voters put it all within stealing range.

 

WinkyDink

(51,311 posts)
110. FLAW: The question about Nader-voters not otherwise voting for Gore, is in retrospect. Had there
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:16 PM
Jun 2013

NEVER BEEN a choice for Nader, before or after this poll, Nader would not even have been in voters' minds.

Sure, NOW they might think, "If not Nader, then nobody."

But THEN, WITH NO NADER POSSIBLE, they perforce would have thought, "If not Gore...WHO?!"

And they would, IMHO, most certainly have voted for Al Gore.

 

stupidicus

(2,570 posts)
116. Even if he did, that's the price we pay for democracy
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:23 PM
Jun 2013

I'd be the last to claim that Nader did anything wrong for tossing his anti-corporatist/fascist hat in the pres ring, even as a Gore voter.

It takes a special kinda idiot to compare him/the Green Party to the Tea Party.

http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2010/index.php

groundloop

(11,486 posts)
117. WTF are we doing worrying about 13 years ago?????
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:27 PM
Jun 2013

We have an important election next year, plus the 2016 election to worry about. Anything that takes our focus off of that is a waste of time.

caseymoz

(5,763 posts)
120. Never could have gone to the SCOTUS without Nader.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:31 PM
Jun 2013

It was apparent three months before the election that Nader didn't have a chance. That's when he should have dropped out. That's what's I would have advised him at the time.

The only counter-argument to that is if all 5% of the electorate that voted for him wouldn't have voted at all or would have voted for Bush out of disgust.

However, what's clear in hindsight is almost never clear when you're living it. Just because I guessed right about that doesn't mean that other people would have perceived it.

So, we should put bitterness about this behind us. Truth is, few people could have anticipated how horrifyingly bad a President George W. Bush would be. It wasn't clear until two years later. Oh, there were hints, but at the time, people were too jaded to think there was much difference between the candidates. It was hard to separate partisan jabs from things that implied incompetence, barbaric thinking and ideological blindness. He was a calamity for the United States.

We can't blame Nader that the Supreme Court made its worst decision up until that time (yes, worse than Dred Scott). We can't blame Nader that our electoral system and our very procedure of counting votes was so defective.

Really, if we had been going by popular vote, Nader would not have mattered. But we a stupid system of electing presidents, and one that discourages third parties, and one that the Founders put in place presuming that there would be no political parties (what's now called a "one-party state&quot .

Let's bury the hatchet about this. You can't narrow the Millennium Disaster to one person. The SCOTUS, especially Sandra Day O'Conner are more to blame. Every person who voted for Dubya then voted for him again in 2004 are more to blame.

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
124. Bullshit. The studies showed that Gore would have had a plurality of 12,000 votes BEFORE SCOTUS.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:35 PM
Jun 2013

The pre-election rigging failed.

RALPH NADER ELECTED GEORGE W. BUSH.

JEFF9K

(1,935 posts)
128. rbn
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:39 PM
Jun 2013

Don't forget the Republican Broadcasting Network (talk radio and Fox News). They trick millions into voting against their own interests.

mzmolly

(50,957 posts)
129. Are we still talking about Nader?
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:40 PM
Jun 2013

I'm not going to debate the context of your commentary, though I disagree with some of your assertions.

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
131. And let's not forget the US Senate, either. Kerry, Feingold, not one Democrat would stand up
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:41 PM
Jun 2013

to join the objection issues from the House. If any single Senator had stood up, but they apparently view the clubhouse as being more important than the nation.

demosincebirth

(12,518 posts)
134. Please explain where would those votes for Nader had gone to if he hadn't run for president that
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:47 PM
Jun 2013

year? I'm tired of all these Naderite excuses about him not being the cause of getting Dubya elected. It's getting old. Facts are facts, no way around them.

bbgrunt

(5,281 posts)
136. those who insist on blaming Nader are like Faux News viewers who just
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:50 PM
Jun 2013

insist on their own lies--as if continually repeating a lie makes it true.

ohiosmith

(24,262 posts)
143. This post was alerted on. The jury voted 5/1 to let it stand.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:59 PM
Jun 2013

At Tue Jun 25, 2013, 09:50 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Ralph Nader Did Not Cost Al Gore the 2000 Presidential Election
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023091107

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This again? Get rid of this BS Nader apologia. Please. This is Democratic Underground, not Nader apologist underground.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jun 25, 2013, 09:54 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Dear alerter: Re: "This again" . . . . yes. This again. And again and again for as long as anyone wishes to post it. It is well within the SOP. Refute it or live with it, but don't alert. Its lazy. (By the way, lest you think I disagree with your fundamental point: Fuck Ralph Nader.)
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Agree with alerter
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Naderphiles are hopeless but this op is not a CS violation.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't see the point of posting this thread. But if that's how you want to spend your time, knock yourself out. I don't have a problem with this.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Is it also Nader's fault the jury voted to leave this post?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

LittleGirl

(8,261 posts)
144. I always say that Bush
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:59 PM
Jun 2013

was appointed President, he didn't win the election. When asked about the 2004 election, I said that Ohio stole the election for him by changing the server IP addresses at 1am that held the election results. He was never ELECTED in either election.

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)
145. ******>>>>> Here's your official Nader Jury Results
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:59 PM
Jun 2013

At Tue Jun 25, 2013, 09:50 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Ralph Nader Did Not Cost Al Gore the 2000 Presidential Election
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023091107

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This again? Get rid of this BS Nader apologia. Please. This is Democratic Underground, not Nader apologist underground.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jun 25, 2013, 09:54 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Dear alerter: Re: "This again" . . . . yes. This again. And again and again for as long as anyone wishes to post it. It is well within the SOP. Refute it or live with it, but don't alert. Its lazy. (By the way, lest you think I disagree with your fundamental point: Fuck Ralph Nader.)
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Agree with alerter
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Naderphiles are hopeless but this op is not a CS violation.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't see the point of posting this thread. But if that's how you want to spend your time, knock yourself out. I don't have a problem with this.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Is it also Nader's fault the jury voted to leave this post?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

boilerbabe

(2,214 posts)
146. sorry dem loyalists but the gore lieberman ticket SUCKED!
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:59 PM
Jun 2013

i remember a great rally at madison square garden with Ralph Nader, MIchael Moore, and the grandmother of punk, Patti SMith in attendance. and didnt that douchebag lieberman have the audacity to scold Clinton for MOnica Lewinsky. Yeah all you fucking political whizzes tell me again how good that centrist PRO NAFTA ticket was

truth2power

(8,219 posts)
149. You're correct. Nader didn't cost Gore the election. But it's heresy to say that here...
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:03 PM
Jun 2013

Chris Hedges explains that, with percentages, in his book, 'The Death of the Liberal Class'.

I don't have Hedges' book; I borrowed it from the public library when I read it. But I'll get it again and post Hedges' explanation, then DUers can give their opinions.

Tobin S.

(10,418 posts)
151. This discussion is so turn of the century
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:11 PM
Jun 2013


These type of discussions are even more futile now than they were 12 years ago.

carolinayellowdog

(3,247 posts)
252. deja vu helps me remember that DU had plenty of pointless arguments even in the good old days
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 08:14 PM
Jun 2013

all based on simplistic and illogical assumptions about causality

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
281. Exactly. That's a fact the Naderites still refuse to accept
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 12:50 AM
Jun 2013

because they were complicit in the crowning of Bush, and they know it.

SomethingFishy

(4,876 posts)
160. You'll never get anywhere with this.. Al Gore himself told me it wasn't Nader that cost him
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:22 PM
Jun 2013

the election. He admitted that his handlers did a really shitty job and that he should have followed his own instincts...

He could come on DU himself and state this and it wouldn't matter. Not to mention that it was 13 years ago and it's probably time to move on..

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
219. He said the same thing in an interview with Jon Stewart,
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 03:07 PM
Jun 2013

and laughed at those trying to blame nader for the loss.

We can't do ANYTHING about Nader.
This is America.
We CAN do something about NOT creating a vacuum on The left that drives Liberals to 3rd party candidates.

I firmly believe that IF Gore had just once looked to The left
and said, "I hear your voices. You are important to me.
I can't make promises to you,
but I will always listen to what you have to say."

If he had said something like THAT just one time,
I am convinced he would have been president.

One of the 99

(2,280 posts)
174. Yes he did.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:46 PM
Jun 2013

Even if only 10% of Nader voters in Florida and New Hampshire voted for Gore, the Bushes and the Supreme Court would never have been in a position to steal it.

Plus, Nader accepted GOP money and used it to run TV ads on the West Coast that lied about Gore. Gore had to divert funds and resources there to combat Nader's ads.

I don't mind that anyone voted for Nader. That is their right. But take responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

Whiskeytide

(4,459 posts)
178. Why is it so hard for some to understand....
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:51 PM
Jun 2013

... that 2000 was the result of a coordinated, multiple front election scheme. Nader's presence in the election DID pull some support from Gore - anyone who denies that is deluding themselves. I have always heard that GOP interests secretly supported Nader for that reason.

Jeb purged voter rolls that kept tens of thousands of likely democrats from voting.

Nader's influence and the purged rolls made the election close enough to allow the FL Sec of State to attempt a steal. If Gore had been winning in a landslide, it would not have been possible.

When the recount was underway and looking like it would result in Gore taking the state, the Felonious Five stepped in to stop it and throw the election to Bush. Bugliosi's article on it was the best legal analysis I have ever read.

Supreme court nominations hung in the balance. It was imperative that a republican get in the White House. It was worth all the risk they took for that reason alone. 911, and all it wrought for them, was an unforeseen bonus.

Lots of blame to go around. Why try to heap it all on one thing or another?

Rowdyboy

(22,057 posts)
180. May Ralph rot in the obscurity he so richly deserves surrounded by fawning syncophants
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:52 PM
Jun 2013

telling him what a fucking hero he is. In my book he ranks just a tad above Dubya.

Again, may Ralph rot....and hopefully before he wastes much more oxygen.

 

louis c

(8,652 posts)
186. Ralph Nader Should Rot in Hell
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:55 PM
Jun 2013

Please, I've been involved in politics all of my life.

The first thing I learned was that knowing how to count was the most important thing in politics.

Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election and he, alone, is responsible for the Bush legacy.

The Supreme Court would have never heard the case if Al Gore won New Hampshire and Florida. There would have been no recount in the Sunshine State, since the New Hampshire vote would have rendered that decision moot. Al Gore would have won Florida by over 100,000 votes on election night if Nader worked for us rather than worked against us.

Every death in Iraq, climate change, the loss of our freedoms, 9/11, the cooperate raid on America and the 2008 Economic Melt Down are all as a result of Ralph Nader's narcissistic ego.

May Ralph Nader Rot in Hell.

former9thward

(31,798 posts)
205. You might be in that position but Nader won't.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 02:18 PM
Jun 2013

Ralph Nader and his projects have done more for the typical American in his little finger than ten of you would in a lifetime. Ralph Nader will be long remembered for his crusades for the American consumer long after every one on earth has forgotten you existed.

 

louis c

(8,652 posts)
340. Ralph Nader will be remembered for the 2000 election
Fri Jul 19, 2013, 08:48 PM
Jul 2013

and everything else he ever did will be forgotten.

John Wilkes Booth was a hell of an actor, but he will be remembered for changing American history for the worse by making the wrong guy President.

Ralph Nader will certainly be more famous than me.

But who the hell are you?

 

louis c

(8,652 posts)
342. Just like Ralph Nader, you are confusing opinions for facts
Sat Jul 20, 2013, 06:23 PM
Jul 2013

Every injustice committed by George Bush 43 is laid at the feet of Ralph Nader.

Nader will be placed in the dust-bin of history and remembered fondly by only a handful of zealots.

As a matter of fact, he already has.

krawhitham

(4,634 posts)
191. Gore needed 2/3 of 1 percent of Nader's FL votes
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:59 PM
Jun 2013

So your study with no link that says the majority would have stayed home.

If 98% stayed home and 2 percent voted for Gore he wins Ohio

all you little no sourced study could mean is 51% stay home and 49% voted for Gore and he only needed 2%

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
209. you will not convince those who keep blaming Nader because they always blame the left and suck up to
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 02:23 PM
Jun 2013

the right.

They are paid to do so.

And as Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

 

Adenoid_Hynkel

(14,093 posts)
212. If Bill Clinton hadn't hired Dick Morris and told progressives to get bent
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 02:37 PM
Jun 2013

while implemented the worst of the conservative agenda in the name of triangulation, maybe Ralph wouldn't have had any reason to run or gain support.

Response to erpowers (Original post)

jmowreader

(50,447 posts)
225. I completely disagree
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 03:15 PM
Jun 2013

Bush's margin was approx 500 votes.

Nader received 97,000. None of those votes would have gone to Bush. Without Nader on the ballot probably 50k would have stayed home, 20k would have chosen another 3d party candidate and 27k would have held their noses and voted Gore.

Throw in the indecipherable Palm Beach butterfly ballot. And the fact that Bush's Florida campaign chair was the person responsible for certifying the vote. And the governor was the brother of one candidate.

Nader wasn't the only reason the election was close enough to steal, but he was the only one who was on the ballot.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
228. Well, I voted for Gore. But lets face it, he ran a poor campaign.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 04:19 PM
Jun 2013

He never used Bill and Hillary on the campaign, despite their having good approval poll #s.
He picked a lackluster running mate with Lieberman.
He never had an answer for GOP smears...inventing internet, Lovestory, etc.
He didn't ever address warnings from Florida that Jeb and Katherine Harris were purging voters and planning to steal election.
He did a lousy job of GOTV.
He didn't win his own homestate.
He was caught flat-footed by the Brooks Brothers Riot.
He had a late start and ineffective challenge in the legal battle.

 

Corruption Inc

(1,568 posts)
229. Excellent post, reality apparently hurts some people's minds
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 04:48 PM
Jun 2013

Everything you posted is true and yet look at all the people that are so unable to even comprehend it. Plus, what you posted has been known for years and yet look at all the people that still don't even believe it.

Rec'd!

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
240. The Usual Suspect always derailed the 2000 Theft
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 06:03 PM
Jun 2013

by bringing up Ralph Nader. Many are now gone from this site, banned as trolls. They were easy to spot, because that is ALL they got! NEVER did they mention Bush vs. Gore. NO, it was always Ralph's fault.

Thankfully the worst of them are now banned.

Skittles

(152,963 posts)
244. there were many factors but Nader was definitely one of them
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 06:43 PM
Jun 2013

his out of control ego was sickening and tainted his legacy

Hamlette

(15,388 posts)
246. apples to oranges, it was all of the above but Nader was part of it
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 07:17 PM
Jun 2013

the recount shows that had it been completed as Gore wanted, Bush would have won Fla. If there had been a statewise recount, which no one requested, Gore would have won.

Nader was running at the time as a spoiler to say there is no difference between republicans and democrats so why not vote for me.

Today, of all days, if someone says there is no difference and it doesn't matter who is prez, I might explode.

 

MrModerate

(9,753 posts)
250. Bull. Count on your fingers.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 08:06 PM
Jun 2013

Nader votes made it close enough for the Bush machine's theft.

No Nader, no Bush.

As for blame, there's plenty to go around, and most of it ends up in the Bush corral.

But here's an unfortunate historical fact: because of Nader's ego and pointless grandstanding, America ended up with the worst president in a hundred years.

TheKentuckian

(24,934 posts)
253. Gore should have appealed to the voters he lost rather than the usual fuckwittery of
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 08:57 PM
Jun 2013

chasing the false middle.

Step #1 would be not selecting Lieberman, which had me holding my nose and heavily considering Nader.

Step #2 would be not agreeing with Bush over and fucking over when you know that are facing a message of "not a dimes worth of difference".

Step #3 Drop the Turd Way, neolib shit and stop being ashamed of being a Democrat.

But no!!!!

Instead there are excuses and finger pointing with no hint of any accountability or thought of correction just the same lackluster excuse that every Scooby Doo villain has just like on EVERY issue. It is ALWAYS someone else's fault and the favored pol was close enough to perfect to make it a joke to suggest a different course.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
254. I see a lot of folks …
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 09:06 PM
Jun 2013

Attempting all sorts of mental gymnastics to exonerate Nader from 2000 culpability; but the numbers just do not support their contention. You would have folks look at the total vote count or a state by state analysis of the vote count; but that doesn’t wash.
Since the election came down to Florida, it is helpful to NOT look at national voting, or a state by state analysis … since we use the electoral college system.
From the link below, you’ll see that Gore and Bush were tied with 49% of the state-wide vote, and Nader pulled 2% of the state-wide vote.

Now, if Nader had not run, and Gore would have pulled a (conservative) 50% of the Nader voters … assuming, of course, the Nader/Green voters were unlikely Bush supporters … that would have been enough to put Florida out of the reach of the gop (and the SCOTUS).

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

Martin Eden

(12,802 posts)
257. Nader's not an Asshole.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 10:44 PM
Jun 2013

He's a flawed character like 99.999% of us human beings, but he built a career advocating for consumers and average citizens like you and me.

Many factors contributed to the result of the 2000 presidential election, and Nader's candidacy was one of those factors. I find it extremely difficult to believe that 98% of the 28,000 voters would have simply stayed home if Nader hadn't run. If they were involved enough to invest their vote for a 3rd party candidate they probably understood that Gore was orders of magnitude preferable to GW Bush.

But channeling blame & rage at Nader for the Dim Son disaster is very misdirected, IMO. Our Two Party system needs to be challenged -- from without and from within. Our democracy is seriously dysfunctional, and that's the REAL problem -- not Ralph Nader, who is much more on our side than the vast majority of Democrats I've voted for since I turned 18 in 1976.

 

JEB

(4,748 posts)
258. Those dang Gore voters cost Nader the Presidency.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 10:45 PM
Jun 2013

Some folks are sick of the triangulation and want to vote for a candidate that represents their values and stances on policy.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
260. A question for you about the "studies"
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 10:48 PM
Jun 2013

You write:

Finally, studies have been conducted that have shown that the majority, if not all, of the people who voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 election would not have voted for Al Gore. Therefore if you accept these studies Ralph Nader did not cost Al Gore any votes.


I don't see how you get to that conclusion.

The "study" I remember is exit polling that Nader posted on his own website. People who had just voted for Nader were asked what they would've done without Nader on the ballot. Some would've persisted in making themselves irrelevant (write in Nader, vote for the candidate who did have the Green line, vote for some other minor party, vote on downticket races but leave President blank, stay home entirely). The only people who count are those who said that, without Nader, they'd have voted for Bush or Gore.

IIRC, the percentage saying "Gore" minus the percentage saying "Bush" was about 13. That means that, if Nader hadn't run, it would have produced a net swing to Gore of approximately 13% of the Nader vote total. That's perfectly consistent with the assertion that the majority would not have voted for Gore, but it would obviously have swung Florida (though not New Hampshire). Jeb couldn't have stolen enough votes to overcome 13,000 or so added to Gore's margin over Bush.

Personally, I don't believe the percentages. Gore would actually have done much better. People were being asked this at the end of a campaign in which the Democrats and Nader had been attacking each other, with the Democrats scrutinizing Nader's petition signatures in states where ballot access was an issue. Naderites were pissed at Gore. If Nader had announced in 1999 that he was NOT running, the animosity would never have arisen, so most of those people would've voted for Gore.

Beyond that, what the Naderites always miss in these discussions is that an event can have multiple causes. Nader's decision to run as a third-party candidate was one cause of the Bush presidency. There were other causes, too, but that doesn't make Nader's role vanish.

The Supreme Court's action doesn't retroactively exonerate Nader, any more than it exonerates Harris.

Silver lining: The most important statistic about the 2000 election is the 2004 election. Nader's vote plummeted. I think he lost about 70% of his support. His false equivalency between Bush and Gore was exposed as false, and most of his voters realized the folly of his candidacy.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
262. Your points are quite irrelevent. Nader lied.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 10:58 PM
Jun 2013

He promised not to campaign aggressively in states that were competitive and then turned around and ran hard in them.



As pre-election polls showed the race to be close, a group of activists who had formerly worked for Nader calling themselves "Nader's Raiders for Gore" took out advertisements in newspapers urging their former mentor to end his campaign. They wrote in an open letter to Nader dated October 21, 2000: "It is now clear that you might well give the White House to Bush. As a result, you would set back significantly the social progress to which you have devoted your entire, astonishing career."[19]

When Nader, in a letter to environmentalists, attacked Gore for "his role as broker of environmental voters for corporate cash," and "the prototype for the bankable, Green corporate politician," and what he called a string of broken promises to the environmental movement, Sierra Club president Carl Pope sent an open letter to Nader, dated October 27, 2000, defending Al Gore's environmental record and calling Nader's strategy "irresponsible."[20] He wrote:


You have also broken your word to your followers who signed the petitions that got you on the ballot in many states. You pledged you would not campaign as a spoiler and would avoid the swing states. Your recent campaign rhetoric and campaign schedule make it clear that you have broken this pledge... Please accept that I, and the overwhelming majority of the environmental movement in this country, genuinely believe that your strategy is flawed, dangerous and reckless.[21]

Pope also protested Nader's suggestion that a "bumbling Texas governor would galvanize the environmental community as never before," and his statement that "The Sierra Club doubled its membership under James G. Watt."[22] Wrote Pope in a letter to the New York Times dated November 1, 2000:


Our membership did rise, but Mr. Nader ignores the harmful consequences of the Reagan-Watt tenure. Logging in national forests doubled. Acid rain fell unchecked. Cities were choked with smog. Oil drilling, mining and grazing increased on public lands. A Bush administration promises more drilling and logging, and less oversight of polluters. It would be little solace if our membership grew while our health suffered and our natural resources were plundered.[23]

On October 26, 2000, Eric Alterman wrote in The Nation, "Nader has been campaigning aggressively in Florida, Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. If Gore loses even a few of those states, then Hello, President Bush. And if Bush does win, then Goodbye to so much of what Nader and his followers profess to cherish."[24]




Of the three candidates who ran in the election it turned out that Nader was the most brazen liar of the three. Had he told his supporters exactly what he was going to do it is doubtful he would have even qualified for most of the states that he got on.

Anyway its all speculation except for one bold fact.

Nader made a solemn promise.

Then he lied.

End of story.

rpannier

(24,304 posts)
270. Gore lost Tennessee, West Virginia and New Hampshire
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:40 PM
Jun 2013

All states Clinton won. NH was also won by Kerry and Obama.
Maybe if he ran a better campaign this wouldn't have happened

BootinUp

(46,924 posts)
271. As William Shatner would say:
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:45 PM
Jun 2013

"Get a Life!"

I can't believe this thread has 270 replies. I guess it worries me, like people think its a good idea to support a 3rd party candidate that draws support from the left. Cause if anyone is saying that in this thread. Fuck Them!

creeksneakers2

(7,468 posts)
273. No defense but finger pointing
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:53 PM
Jun 2013

I've yet to see one Nader apologist explain what THEY did and explain why in hindsight it was a good idea.

Gman

(24,780 posts)
274. Horse manure. The blood of Afghanistan and Iraq is on Nader's hands
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 12:07 AM
Jun 2013

And every single bad thing up to and including today's abominable SCOTUS decision is squarely his fault. Everything. There is no excusing it. He knew as well as everyone else that it would be a close election and he chose to run anyway and split the vote. Nader is a sorry piece of horse shit that should never show his face again in public.

LSK

(36,846 posts)
277. you mean to tell me those 22000 people in New Hampshire..
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 12:38 AM
Jun 2013

Who voted Nader would have voted for Bush if he wasnt on the ballot?????

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presge.htm#NH

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
285. I absolutely disagree with you. Nader cost Gore NH and FL. Look at the exit polls and the results..
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 01:41 AM
Jun 2013

... and you will see enough people would have voted for Gore if Nader was not on the ballot. Yes Bush cheated but if it wasn't for Nader Bush would never have been able to get away with it.

Absolving Nader is foolish in my opinion but I respect you have a different view.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
288. i think gore cost nader the election. makes about as much sense. elections don't 'belong'
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 02:33 AM
Jun 2013

to the two major parties, for all they're trying to make it that way.

 

BillyRibs

(787 posts)
292. I know your are right, but it's as Pearls Before Swine.
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 04:42 AM
Jun 2013

The Nader haters are fools. don't waste your time.

 

B Calm

(28,762 posts)
296. I partly blame Nader. Hell
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 05:57 AM
Jun 2013

if he hadn't been on the Florida ballot, we would all be driving solar powered flying cars by now.

 

burnodo

(2,017 posts)
305. We would be living in abject paradise.
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 06:46 AM
Jun 2013

Democrats wouldn't be vowing to kill terrorists, or murder US citizens, or torture whistleblowers, or support Republican policies, etc.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
297. Correct.
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 06:05 AM
Jun 2013

Nader is responsible only for his own actions. Many, many other factors converged on Florida and the rest of the nation. Not even our own apathy, nor the Supreme Court's corruption, should get all the blame.

great white snark

(2,646 posts)
309. I hope you mean the straw men used to support the contention of this OP.
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 08:12 AM
Jun 2013

We suffer and struggle so much in these times because of Nader.

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
303. Wow! Are we so bored we have to fight over this again? It reminds me...
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 06:35 AM
Jun 2013

of those endless debates on WBAI between elderly Socialists and Communists over who said what back in the 40's.

It doesn't matter.

Nader sucked, the Supreme Court sucked, Katherine Harris sucked, and everyone who had a "good reason" not to vote for Gore sucked.

The fault is shared among all-- if one piece of that particular puzzle had not fallen into place, Gore would have won.


mikekohr

(2,312 posts)
306. Yes he did. And because of that his legacy to America is now a gigantic net minus.
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 07:39 AM
Jun 2013

Split the Democratic vote in a national election and we will lose. Every time.

Nader made his point in 2000, "Al Gore was not 'pure' enough." So Ralph gave us George W. Bush. How'd that work out?

Nader's selfish, self absorbed run in 2000 will tarnish his legacy forever, and considering the harm that resulted from George W. Bush, Nader's legacy is now a gigantic net minus to America, the World and humanity.

Actions have consequences. President Obama is now tasked with cleaning up the result of those actions.

DainBramaged

(39,191 posts)
307. You can't rewrite history, if not for Nader there would NOT have been Supremes intervention
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 07:54 AM
Jun 2013

try as you might, just like the revisionists trying to rewrite history nationwide, trying to convince DU is like telling us GWB was right in starting the Iraq war.



Have a nice day

 

grattsl

(63 posts)
310. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 08:24 AM
Jun 2013

No Nader, No President Bush. You may love the man, but he is the reason (the SOLE reason) our country had the worst president in our history. The least the man could and should do is own up to his actions and apologize for his mistake.

JGug1

(320 posts)
312. Nonsense
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 08:48 AM
Jun 2013

This is bullshit. OF COURSE Gore would have won, no matter what the Rethugs did in Florida IF Nader hadn't run......but the issue of blame is complex...Ask yourselves how BIG Gore would have won IF Bill Clinton had kept his pants zipped. And, yes, the Rethugs did everything possible to get those electoral votes.

gtar100

(4,192 posts)
318. Kicking the hornet's nest, eh?
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:07 AM
Jun 2013
This topic stirs up a lot of resentment in people. But I'm one inclined to agree with your op. Repugs played dirty and got away with it. Hence, the insanity we're in now. A lot could have been done to change the outcome back then but wasn't. Now we know clearly and undeniably the true colors of the republicans.

Javaman

(62,435 posts)
323. I love when this topic comes up on DU...
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:43 AM
Jun 2013

It happens roughly every 6 months.

Why? Who the hell knows.

the responses retread the same old this and that.

my question is: what purpose does this serve? Get people pissed off all over again? How does that help? We can't rewrite history no matter how we feel happened or didn't happen back then. Sadly, we still have to live with the outcome and all the horrible after effects.

So throwing a stink bomb into the GD forum, is amusing to watch, but serves what purpose?

meh.

While I choose to learn from the past, I prefer to live in the present.

Getting my blood worked up over something I can not change is the corollary to the definition of insanity.

Raster

(20,996 posts)
324. The fix was in. There is NO WAY the Petroleum Mafia was going to allow Al Gore to ...
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:48 AM
Jun 2013

...assume the Presidency of the United States, which, in reality he had actually won. No way.

Ralph Nader was nothing more than a convenient scapegoat. Long before the first ballot was cast, the outcome was predetermined, by hook or by crook.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
327. RALPH NADER LIED and CIVIL RIGHTS DIED. Both statements are 100% verifiable and true.
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:05 AM
Jun 2013

Regardless if Nader is or is not the smoking gun, Ralph Nader LIED when he said Bush and Gore were the same.
SCOTUS has proven it.

CIVIL RIGHTS DIED yesterday thanks to SCOTUS>

Xithras

(16,191 posts)
328. As I've been saying for 12+ years...
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:26 AM
Jun 2013

...the assumption that Gore would have won the election without Nader presumes that Nader voters would have turned to Gore if Nader hadn't been present. This assumption is the result of selective memory and ignores several glaring facts.

1. Al Gore had spent 8 years attempting to publicly distance himself from Earth in the Balance, his only real and major pro-environmental publication at that time. He actively attempted to dodge the "environmentalist" label when the press tried to attach it to him. When asked about the environment during his presidential campaign, he often sidestepped the discussion and painted himself as a "centrist".

2. Al Gore was not an overly active VP during the Clinton administration, and he had little grassroots support outside of the "I'll vote for any Democrat" types. Seriously. I couldn't at the time, and all these years later still cannot, name a single great thing that he accomplished during his 8 years as VP.

3. In contrast to Gore's single book on environmentalism, he published TWO books while actually serving as VP. Both of them focused on making government more businesslike, cutting the national budget, and touting centrist small government positions. One had the audacity to actually tout things that the government could learn from corporations.

4. People tend to forget that Clinton was highly unpopular with a wide swath of the left. Remember the Battle of Seattle? Remember the huge WTO protests in other cities around the nation? Hundreds of thousands of Americans participated in those protests, lead heavily by major American unions, college students, and other progressives around the country...and all within 12 months of that election. Clinton was widely seen as an ally and defender of the WTO, and was quite public about his support for internationalization and international trade. He also supported and oversaw the largest cut to welfare and other public assistance in American history (at that time anyway), which undermined a lot of Democratic support among other progressives, the poor, and minority voters. Oh, and lets not forget the whole big brotherish V-Chip thing (I didn't have an issue with that one, though a lot of social libertarians did).

5. Al Gore didn't really run on his own record, but instead based much of his platform on the promise of continuing the "Clinton Prosperity". Coupled with points 3 & 4, that lead a lot of voters to assume that he would simply be continuing Clinton's policies. This was widely seen as a "bad thing".


Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the presidency. Al Gore cost Al Gore the presidency. I'd vote for TODAY'S Al Gore in a heartbeat, but the Al Gore who was campaigning for President in 1999 and 2000 was a milquetoast Third Way centrist who made no effort to mend the Democratic Party's serious rifts with the left and was actively radiating positions that ran counter to liberal ideals. In contrast, Bush was seen as a non-threat. He was the silver spoon son of one of Americas most uninteresting single term President's and was best known for his sports team. Many people presumed that he would be as uninteresting as his father.

Gore wasn't appealing enough, and Bush wasn't terrifying enough. If Nader hadn't been on the ticket, most of the people who voted for him would have either gone with another third party, or just stayed home. Gore had very little appeal to the average Nader voter.

 

JEB

(4,748 posts)
330. Think how much better off we would be today
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:48 AM
Jun 2013

if only those deluded Gore voters had not thrown the chance of a lifetime away. Nader had the dynamic ideas and the courage to fight for them. Al had the triangulation thing down pat. I guess that's why they call it an election.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Ralph Nader Did Not Cost ...