General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRalph 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.
Autumn
(44,743 posts)rec
Zorra
(27,670 posts)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)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)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)The supreme court stopped the count and appointed Bush. When the votes were finally counted Al Gore had won.
brush
(53,467 posts)Without Nader taking votes it wouldn't have been so close.
Autumn
(44,743 posts)BillyRibs
(787 posts)Regurgitated B.S. line from the DCCC!
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)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.
BehindTheCurtain76
(112 posts)And get ready for Jeb Shrub vs Shrillary in 2016...please God NO!
Response to erpowers (Original post)
Post removed
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)byeya
(2,842 posts)Gothmog
(143,998 posts)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
StevieM
(10,499 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...and you should be ashamed for not knowing it.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)No. Not at all.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)former9thward
(31,798 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)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)Complaining after you agreed to something just because you don't like the outcome has little effect.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)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)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)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)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)momrois
(98 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)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).
aggiesal
(8,863 posts)mattclearing
(10,091 posts)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)made sure he was on as many state ballots as he could to insure he would be the spoiler.
He succeeded
TommyCelt
(838 posts)...the BASTARD.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)politician was running for president.
Sad that you can't see the difference.
TommyCelt
(838 posts)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)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)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)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)are YOU paying attention? are they not as culpable as you believe Nader voters were in costing Florida for Gore?
Which changes the FACT that Nader running swung the election to Bush how?
frylock
(34,825 posts)you are in denial of that fact.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...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)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)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.
frylock
(34,825 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)nxylas
(6,440 posts)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)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.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Nader not Running = Gore win.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)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)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)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.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Nader running resulted in Bush wining but that's Gore's fault.
Brilliant.
TommyCelt
(838 posts)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)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)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)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)Makes no difference to me.
Gore will still be runner-up in 2000. Go figure.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)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)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)Otherwise we would have never gotten another Bush in the White House!
demwing
(16,916 posts)when all the votes are there to count.
Too bad the people in Rosendull can't figure that out.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)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)Don't forget whose fault it actually was.
Neither Nader nor his voters did anything illegal
demwing
(16,916 posts)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.
MADem
(135,425 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)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)DUers seem to give the 2000 SCOTUS a pass on this horrific election theft.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)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)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)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.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)still_one
(91,937 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)n/t
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)an election for Bush. Nader had nothing to do with it.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)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)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)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)You're using the proliferation of the "Fuck Nader" threads as proof there are no threads saying fuck the court.
alsame
(7,784 posts)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.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)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)president?
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)The SCOTUS conspired to hijack this nation.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)& said 'uncle,' contributing to the perception that what happened was ok.
Autumn
(44,743 posts)They tend to forget that. Yes, they give them a pass and blame it on Nader.
Nitram
(22,663 posts)...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)If Clinton had governed as a Democrat,
then No Nader.
Vacuums are filled, in Physics AND Politics.
Its The LAW.
"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
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Now watch as your simple truth is ignored.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)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.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Succinct statement of reality. Thanks, bvar.
Gothmog
(143,998 posts)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.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...because he denied that persistent myth.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Remember?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)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)
frylock
(34,825 posts)righteous rant!
TDale313
(7,820 posts)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)... unverified studies can prove whatever you want.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)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)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)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)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)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)As a progressive, I find it very reasonable to defend that. More reasonable than defending authoritarian policy positions.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)When the rubber meets the road, he harms progressive policies. He fights progressives as insufficiently pure instead of fighting Republicans.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)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)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
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)It's foolish in the extreme to blame Nader. Gore WON the fucking election.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)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.
byeya
(2,842 posts)LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Nader and his moral equivalency BS has contributed to continuing the justification on the left for disenfranchisement of people. Ralph was wrong.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)RockaFowler
(7,429 posts)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)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)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)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)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.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)not a reason to blame him for the shortcomings of the Gore campaign.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)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.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)tinrobot
(10,848 posts)...and definitely had some effect on the outcome.
There were many reasons it happened, Nader was just one of those.
byeya
(2,842 posts)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.
G_j
(40,366 posts)no amount of hatred for Nader will change them.
bhikkhu
(10,708 posts)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)been appointed regardless of who ran or who won.
Nader had zero to do with the theft of that election.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)bhikkhu
(10,708 posts)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)Jill Stein just wasn't up to the job. True Democrats learned & internalized the lessons of 2000.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Because Obama was "articulate" and therefore could sway people away for Greeny causes.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)he was doing, and why Repukes were pouring money into his coffers. He & Jill Stein are still useful idiots for rightwing teabaggery.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)who gets to decide who can run and who can't? you?
JCMach1
(27,544 posts)carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)and no good reason to exclude any of the factors involved
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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)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)(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)
OregonBlue
(7,744 posts)he did.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)As someone wrote on another thread:
'The vote in 2014 won't get depressed without help!'
LOL.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)instead they try to co-opt ours. Fuck them, and the Repuke enabling horse they rode in on.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)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)I wish I had gold stars to pass out!
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Fuck Buchanan, Fuck Katherine Harris, Fuck Karl Rove, and Jeb too.
TommyCelt
(838 posts)Fuck anyone who's not you?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)TommyCelt
(838 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)TommyCelt
(838 posts)Thanks for the laugh.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)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)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)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)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)... 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.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)and when one makes a horrible VP pick
and when one ran a poor campaign
But let's blame Nader.
BWAH
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Next!
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)if Gore wins TN in 2000, Gore is the prez. But Gore failed to win his home state. I blame Gore for that one.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Bob Corker, United States senator. Guy does absolutely nothing.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Gore failed. He ran a horrible campaign.
NEXT!
Rob H.
(5,340 posts)...along with most of the TN state legislature.
JI7
(89,172 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)As Gore won, you're statement is without reproach.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)To take that position is to legitimize bush and the Supreme Court opinion.
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)Just read some of the posts in this thread and it proves it too.
still_one
(91,937 posts)and rightfully deserved
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Nader is as to blame as anyone.
and oh, yeah
Fuck Nader
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)How's that mandate been working out for you?
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)vote for him twice and wish i could do it again
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)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)people have the right to do all sorts of counterproductive \, destructive things.
still_one
(91,937 posts)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
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Hydra
(14,459 posts)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)The Five Supremes sealed the deal. may they rot in hell enjoying their payoff from their corpo-rat masters.
gulliver
(13,142 posts)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)And only if the election wasn't a selection.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)And now the earth burns for it, simple as that.
TommyCelt
(838 posts)Quitcherbitchin.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)people with narrow minds rarely look at the big picture.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)hokay then.
Roll your eyes somewhere else.
frylock
(34,825 posts)even more so for linking back to your bullshit.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...it's not like I can stop you making a fool of yourself.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)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)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)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)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.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)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)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.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)Orrex
(63,083 posts)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)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)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.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Coccydynia
(198 posts)I guess I shouldn't have used the M word.
sabbat hunter
(6,825 posts)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.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)Renew Deal
(81,801 posts)You're right to
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)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?
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)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.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,161 posts)You know, the one he hibernates in for 46 months at a time.
Response to erpowers (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JustAnotherGen
(31,681 posts)A Democratic Party member.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,681 posts)In Your Face!
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)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)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)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)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)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.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Democat
(11,617 posts)And gave us the right wing Supreme Court.
cali
(114,904 posts)Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)That's the history, that's what happened. Deny history all you want, it doesn't change it.
erpowers
(9,350 posts)I admit the article is a bit long, but it is a good read.
http://politizine.blogspot.com/2004/02/debunking-myth-ralph-nader-didnt-cost.html
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)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)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)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.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)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)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)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" .
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)The pre-election rigging failed.
RALPH NADER ELECTED GEORGE W. BUSH.
Don't forget the Republican Broadcasting Network (talk radio and Fox News). They trick millions into voting against their own interests.
demosincebirth
(12,518 posts)mzmolly
(50,957 posts)I'm not going to debate the context of your commentary, though I disagree with some of your assertions.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)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)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.
PDittie
(8,322 posts)Here I establish my own premise for why it is accurate (Which dovetail with much of the OP):
http://brainsandeggs.blogspot.com/2012/09/of-urban-legends-and-2000-election.html
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)insist on their own lies--as if continually repeating a lie makes it true.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)it was of Nader was not on the ballot.
ohiosmith
(24,262 posts)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.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)ohiosmith
(24,262 posts)LittleGirl
(8,261 posts)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)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)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)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)These type of discussions are even more futile now than they were 12 years ago.
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)all based on simplistic and illogical assumptions about causality
bowens43
(16,064 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)because they were complicit in the crowning of Bush, and they know it.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)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)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.
SpankMe
(2,937 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)RedstDem
(1,239 posts)Mr. Al Gore
Cronus Protagonist
(15,574 posts)Who's that? Some also ran like Perot? Oh yeah. I think I remember him. What a dipstick.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)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.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)It was the Bush Crime Family® all the way.
Whiskeytide
(4,459 posts)... 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)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)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)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.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)louis c
(8,652 posts)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?
former9thward
(31,798 posts)A better student of history than you.
louis c
(8,652 posts)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)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)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!"
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)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)
Name removed Message auto-removed
jmowreader
(50,447 posts)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)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)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!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)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)his out of control ego was sickening and tainted his legacy
Hamlette
(15,388 posts)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.
Itchinjim
(3,083 posts)Fuck Nader.
MrModerate
(9,753 posts)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)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)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 doesnt 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, youll 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
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,780 posts)Martin Eden
(12,802 posts)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)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)You write:
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)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.
we can do it
(12,116 posts)rpannier
(24,304 posts)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)"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)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)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)Who voted Nader would have voted for Bush if he wasnt on the ballot?????
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presge.htm#NH
sad-cafe
(1,277 posts)the election would not have been close enough to manipulate
Rooting for the Dems
(14 posts)He wasn't alone of course. But to absolve him of responsibility is wrong.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)... 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.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)to the two major parties, for all they're trying to make it that way.
BillyRibs
(787 posts)The Nader haters are fools. don't waste your time.
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)Nothing more nothing less.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)if he hadn't been on the Florida ballot, we would all be driving solar powered flying cars by now.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)Democrats wouldn't be vowing to kill terrorists, or murder US citizens, or torture whistleblowers, or support Republican policies, etc.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)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.
Rain Mcloud
(812 posts)keep them coming DU!
great white snark
(2,646 posts)We suffer and struggle so much in these times because of Nader.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)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)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)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)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.
Iggo
(47,486 posts)JGug1
(320 posts)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.
UCmeNdc
(9,589 posts)Period.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)Javaman
(62,435 posts)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)...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.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)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)...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)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.