Are there any 2000 Nader voters here

[skepticscott]

who are still clinging to the notion that there was and is no difference between the Republican and the Democratic candidate? Would we have this charmingly conservative Supreme Court if Al Gore had been elected? Seriously?

Imagine what kind of country we'd have right now, if the Bush-nominated justices were Gore-nominated liberals. If there were a 6-3 liberal majority on the US Supreme Court. Think about that every day. Think about it every goddamn day between now and November 2016.

[COLGATE4]

1. K&R this! nt

[Gothmog]

2. Nader gave Bush the election

The result is the Roberts Court including the gutting of the Voting Rights Act

[knitter4democracy]

4. No, the Supreme Court did.

Gore had the votes. He clearly did at the time, and it was found later that he conclusively did. The Nader thing is a red herring: the real problem in 2000 was the SCOTUS and still is.

[brush]

9. But Nader siphoning off votes . . .

made it close enough for SCOTUS to step in.

He's got to live with it. But he probably doesn't care as I'm pretty sure he got paid.

[TheKentuckian]

17. I voted for Gore but this is stupid. How the Supreme Court gets a pass

I have no idea other than all your votes belong to us, they don't and Gore chose not to pursue them and Hell, the party still doesn't preferring to attempt to leverage guilt and scorn.

Need every vote, then start acting like it instead of entitled on a good day and trying to run folks off on a bad one.

I also don't get some folks who demand solidarity but offer none, quick to call someone else's need a pony or some such alienating thing and can't even be bothered to make others feel heard and respected.

[winter is coming]

21. ^^ This. n/t

[freedom fighter jh]

54. +1

Agree on all counts.

[villager]

58. "...who demand solidarity but offer none"

Very well put, TheKentuckian!

[Gothmog]

19. Nader enabled the SCOTUS to steal the election

If Nader had not focused on Florida, then the race would not have been close and Gore would be POTUS. Nader cost Gore the election as a matter of pure spite.

[knitter4democracy]

62. And in 2004, it was the computers in Ohio.

We need to put the blame where it belongs--the GOP and their machinations.

[Gothmog]

60. Nader was key in giving Bush the 2000 victory

The SCOTUS could not even rule in this case if Nader had not screwed Gore. Here are some facts on this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes [nearly 200 times the size of Bush's Florida 'win']. In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 [three times the size of Bush's 'win' in that state]." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States -- even more indispensable, and more important to Bush's "electoral success," than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation's chief Ken Lay.

All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?" (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, "We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore." David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, "Nader to Crash Dems Party?" and he wrote: "In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore's loss." Nationwide, Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, "Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?" (also on the internet) presented "Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates," showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader's voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn't have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn't been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida's Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn't included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.

The SCOTUS would never had a chance if Nader had not been stupid

[knitter4democracy]

63. They would have found some reason.

In 2004, the computers in Ohio gave it to him, too. Put the blame where it really belongs: the GOP and their machinations.

[Gothmog]

65. Only if the election was close

The courts could not step in if Gore had several thousand more votes than bush. The polling and Charlie Cook both show that the election would not have been close at all but for Nader's stupidity

[knitter4democracy]

66. There's a lot of evidence that says that's wrong.

They stole the election, even by thousands.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

43. He is partially responsible

He served his purpose. He wasn't the whole reason....

The butterfly ballots

The Court itself

Jeb

Lot of reasons. It was a perfect political storm. But Nader gets no pass from me.

[quinnox]

3. Nader voters are a boogeyman

2000 Nader voters hanging here at Du? Come on.

[BootinUp]

5. they prolly wouldn't admit it today.

[NobodyHere]

7. I voted for Nader in 2008?

Does that count?

It felt GREAT voting for an actual liberal.

[JI7]

10. someone who dismisses the issue of abortion rights is not a liberal , but i can see why

some people may think so.

i have seen many who claim to be liberal on DU not care about issues concerning minorities and women.

[quinnox]

12. You mean, you are the one who gave us Romney as president?

[MohRokTah]

18. You are as much my political enemy as any teabagger.

Until you repent.

[JI7]

8. Ralph NAder "Even if Roe v. Wade is reversed, that doesn't end it,"

the truth is that most Nader voters just don't care about this issue or things like civil rights. why do you think most of those voters were white males.

why are they unable to get minority and female votes ?

[JI7]

11. shortly before Paul Wellstone died Ralph Nader was asked if he would support Wellstone

for Senate and Nader said he wasn't sure .

after Wellstone died Nader exploited his death to attack other dems.

so why when given the chance did he not enthusiastically support wellstone ?

[zappaman]

13. Imagine if Gore had run a good campaign

and didn't keep it close enough by running a bad campaign for Bush to steal.
Hey, even winning his home state would have been nice.

[quinnox]

14. Yep, Gore blew it. The LIEberman pick also was boneheaded.

[zappaman]

42. The WORST pick

[quinnox]

44. +1000

[rpannier]

56. That's always conveniently left out of the discussion

Gore ran a crappy campaign
He lost states that Clinton won
He lost 271-266.
Had he won NH (a state that every Democratic Presidential candidate has won since 92) he'd have had 270.
Had he won West Virginia he'd have had another 5
I'd be curious if the guy who abstained rather than vote for Gore would have done so if Gore had won NH. Because that would have given Gore 271 w/o him abstaining.
Would he have been willing to be the guy who sent the whole thing to Congress?

He ran a play it safe strategy and he wound up running a bad campaign
That should be the jumping off point in the conversation about 2000

[davidn3600]

15. With the way Obama treated Occupy, I'd be shocked if any young people turn out anymore

[winter is coming]

27. Well, Obama won't be running, unless he wants to be a Senator again some day.

I hope that young voters would turn out for someone like Warren. I don't see it happening for Hillary or any other status quo candidate.

[JEB]

46. That was Nader's fault.

[geek tragedy]

57. Obama didn't do shit to Occupy, and

Occult was not the defining issue for young people.

[wyldwolf]

16. probably not. But there are a lot who (say) they'd gladly do what Nader voters did

Specifically, the "I won't vote for _______if he/she is the Democratic nominee" crowd.

[MohRokTah]

20. I would vote for a fucking ham sandwich if the bread and swine won the nomination.

I'll support Hillary in the primaries.

I'll support the ham sandwich if the luncheon food wins.

[BootinUp]

34. +1 and +1

Agreed with and funny as hell too.

Classic.

[JI7]

23. and they will come back under different names after the election

and talk about how they have the right to attack the Dem Pres because "nobody worked harder, raised money, contributed"..................... than they did.

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. DING! DING! DING! Thread Winner! They expended tons of shoe leather for that disappointment.

[Aerows]

25. Or folks like me

that voted for Gore in Florida and wondered if our votes were really counted - which is worse.

[Aerows]

22. I don't know about anyone else in this thread

but I voted for Gore. I voted in Florida in 2000. I *think* I voted for Gore.

[winter is coming]

33. +1 to "thinking" you voted for someone.

Voting for Gore was my first time using electronic machines. I often wonder how many votes disappeared down the rabbit hole.

[G_j]

24. who wants to know?

The Truth Squad???

[Throd]

26. My dad voted for Nader in 2000. (In Florida)

[Aerows]

29. I *think* I voted for Gore in Florida in 2000

But I don't think anyone really knows who they voted for in Florida in 2000.

[Tarheel_Dem]

28. Thank You! However, I'd be ashamed to admit it if I were.

[genwah]

30. I didn't and wouldn't, but I'm more concerned with GOTV in November. Nader's not running.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. I haven't seen anyone say that "there is no differnce between" the parties.

I have seen people say that there's "not enough" difference between the parties.

I held my nose and voted for Gore in 2000.

[Blue_In_AK]

35. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000,

not because I didn't think there was a difference in the parties, but because I knew Gore would never take Alaska anyway. Sometimes it's refreshing to be able to vote one's conscience. If I had lived in a more swing state, I would have voted for Gore, but in my opinion, he didn't run a very inspiring campaign that year.

[dhill926]

36. yes….

voted for Nader in an extremely red state. Had I lived in Florida, I would have voted for Gore. Gore also ran a terrible campaign if you remember...

[Phlem]

37. Fuck this infighting

The REAL problem are the Republicans and everyone that supports them, period. And yes that would include corporate Democrats and Centrists.

The party has been pulled to the right, I would imagine that could cause some tension between older Democrats and the "New Democrats", as Obama proudly labeled himself.

We need to pull left in a strong way just to move things back to where they were, instead of the insanity that we deal with daily now.

[Aerows]

38. The problem that we have

is that if you speak a word against a policy that Obama supports or against any of the garden variety third way crap, you are branded a traitor, a pony-wanter, or somebody that wants the perfect rather than the good.

I am so sick of "you want the perfect rather than the good" I can scream, because when Obama does something that is neither perfect NOR good, he's playing chess and merely good isn't feasible because "he is waiting to do it perfectly." See the entire NSA pile of crap.

[winter is coming]

51. I have *never* seen the "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" argument used

when the so-called "perfect" was perfect or the "good" was any good.

[BootinUp]

55. Are you trying to justify letting Bush win over Gores VP pick?

[winter is coming]

59. Nope. I don't think Lieberman's even been mentioned in this subthread. n/t

[skepticscott]

39. It's not infighting

It's a reminder that votes have real consequences that can last for a very, very long time. Those who claimed to be "voting their conscience" when they supported, campaigned and voted for Nader should still have this on their "conscience". Frankly anyone who lent support or legitimacy to Nader as a candidate in any way bears some of the responsibility, regardless of whether they actually voted in a state where Nader votes made a difference.

[G_j]

41. yes it is, demonstrated clearly by the very statement you just made.

who the hell are you to tell another DUer what they should have on their conscience? You do imply guilt. As a wise person said, 'no one likes to be should upon'.

[KG]

40. the dem party blew it. couldn't turn peace and an economic boom into a walk-off homer.

blaming nader is just another example of why the dem party has basically been out of power since reagan.

[fishwax]

45. dubya didn't appoint any justices in his first term, so Gore also would have had to win re-election

[Bluenorthwest]

47. I spent the 2000 election talking people into supporting Gore over Nader sucessfully

and even I think this is a really simplistic view that serves all sorts of actually culpable parties. Let's start with the SCOTUS 'cause it's their day today. But more importantly the entire Democratic caucus in the Senate, who refused to stand with the House Black Caucus and continue the recount. That includes Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, the entire lot of them. Not one of them would stand up. It was an infamous action.
I'd also freely blame the fuckers who continue to have shitty registration and voting processes that leave more votes on the table uncast than were cast in the first place. If a few fucking votes for a fringe candidate can derail your efforts, you have only yourself to blame.
Or we can continue this bullshit, which was never really true, and give all the blame deserved by those in great power to some marginal politician in his later dotage.

Lastly Al Gore won the election.

[G_j]

50. thank you for mentioning the Black Caucus

BLACK: There were 13 objections in all, 12 from minority group members in the House of Representatives, last one saw was Bob Filner, who's a Democrat from California, a former professor, a big supporter of Al Gore, and clearly was just moved by the emotion of the moment.

They were all gavelled down. It was a great irony for the vice president. Here were some of his biggest supporters in the House of Representatives. He was clearly sympathetic, understood what they were trying to do, but he went right by the book. There was no debate allowed under the law that governs this joint session. There is also -- no objection can be heard unless it is signed by a House member and a senator.

Not a single senator would join members of the Congressional Black Caucus, much to their dismay. About a dozen members of the caucus walked out in protest, to protest the Florida vote, and then had a press conference in the gallery.

<snip>
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/06/se.02.html

[DCBob]

48. I voted for Nader as a protest vote.

I'm from Maryland and knew it wouldn't affect the outcome since MD is a deep blue state. I also knew Bush was worse but I didn't like the choices. I do regret it now given the outcome.

[riderinthestorm]

49. I did. But I'm in N Illinois, a safe Dem state

I did it to send a message that third parties should never be discounted.

If I.lived in a swing state then no. I never would have.

[Takket]

52. to say nothing of the fact that...

9/11, the Iraq war, the afghan war, never would have happened under gore.

the country would have maintained prosperity and embraced green initiatives. America would still be the shining beacon on the hill, instead of the worldwide bully it is seen as now.

[Autumn]

53. Imagine what kind of country we'd have right now, if a corrupt supreme court had not

stepped in and appointed GW Bush President. I think about it every goddamn day how all our politicians were silent and SAID nothing and DID nothing. I imagine what kind of country we'd have right now, if Al Gore had taken his rightful place as President, he won the election and I will never give that fucking court a pass and blame Nader or Gore. The fucking supreme court stepped in where they had no business stepping in. And except for the Black Caucus who were ignored, our so called democratic leaders rolled over for them like cheap cigars and spent the next eight fucking years rolling over for Bush. Fuck. That. Shit.

I think about it every goddamn fucking day. They were just as fucking corrupt in 2000 as they are today.

[skepticscott]

61. If not for Ralph Nader's ego

and the "conscience" of a lot of his rabid supporters, it would never have gotten to that point. It would never have mattered that Al Gore didn't run a perfect campaign.

[randys1]

64. Focus everybody, now is not the time to divide us.

[AZ Mike]

67. Very regretably, I voted Nader in 2000.

The only thing preventing me from feeling too terrible about that move is that I'm in AZ and there's no way I or all the other Nader voters combined could have flipped the state to Gore.

However, I won't ever make that mistake again no matter what the greater odds of the state are.

[PDittie]

68. I was a Nader Trader

I voted for Nader in Texas, and someone for Nader voted for Gore (in some other state, quite possibly Florida, which I cannot recall today). Honor system, arranged online.

By the way, this post provides an explanation as to why people should just get over blaming Nader. He was the fifth-most likely reason Gore lost, once you get past the SCROTUS, Gore's own ineptitude, the fact that 200,000-250,000 registered Democrats in FL voted for Bush, and Theresa LePore's butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County.

But that aside, since Republicans don't whine any more about Ross Perot (twice) giving us Bill Clinton -- a much more legitimate rationale -- and it's been almost fourteen years now... it seems pretty ridiculous to be holding a grudge against Nader at this point.

YMMV.

[LWolf]

69. Nope. I've never voted for Nader.

I voted for Gore in 2000. From CA.

I've also never needed to attack or blame Nader voters for the 2000 Florida debacle. I knew better. I've never hated Nader voters. I understand why they voted for Nader, and I support their right to vote for whomever they choose.

As far as 2000 goes, the bottom line is election fraud. Neither Nader, nor his voters, are responsible for that.

As for the rest...Democrats who are worried that the left will vote outside party lines can solve that problem by nominating someone the left can tolerate. Or, if the majority of Democrats don't care to do that, they can accept the loss of votes as their own choice.

It's choice...something Democrats are supposed to support.

It seems pretty clear, with the early drumbeats for HRC and determination to demonize those that don't support her, when we haven't yet even gotten to midterm elections, let alone primary season, that the left is being set up to be the scapegoat for her loss, should she lose.

That's not a winning tactic with me. I find it despicable and unworthy of respect.