General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThanks, Nader.
Last edited Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:10 PM - Edit history (3)
Math says he will rule the court for at least 25 more years.
(Yes, the combination of Nader, a cheating Florida GOP, and SCOTUS did it. Gore didn't run a good campaign, but without ANY ONE of these three Florida factors, he would have been President.)
[IMG]
[/IMG]
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cheated but Nader has his share of the blame.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)But without any one of the shares, Bush is never pResident.
The scotus stole the election. All this time and you still blame one man? Are you are scotus denier? I think you are. FTS.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Enough of this making excuses for the scotus. F. T. S.
The election was stolen. Nader is no more to blame than you are. In fact he is less to blame than the scotus enablers.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)IA. The campaign would have unfolded differently if Nader did not run. Gore would have gotten enough votes in NH and FL that they would not have been able to steal it.
Yes the court stole it for him but Nader was a contributing factor.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Gore won the election. It was stolen from Gore, by the bushes in Florida and the Scotus.
It's like you are saying "if God didn't want bush to win it wouldn't have been stolen".
All you need to know is the crooks stole the presidency. I figured every good DU'er knew that? So WhyTF is this protecting the bushes and scotus still being seen here? WTF is going on? Koolaid drinking still?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)No one is not saying they didn't steal it. I am old enough to remember the election.
But to say Nader was nit a factor is bull.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Can you take criticism of your BS?
The Scotus and the bushes are responsible for the theft.
Repeat after me: Gore won. Can you type that? I bet you can if you try real hard. But you won't, will you?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Before You Get All Up In Your "It's All Ralph Nader's Fault !!!" - Ya Might Wanna Take A Look Here:
Congressional Democrats ratify Bush election coup in US
By Patrick Martin - WSWS
8 January 2001
If even a single Democratic senator had signed an objection, the joint session would have adjourned and the House and Senate would have convened separately to vote, with a majority of both Houses required to sustain the objection. The Democrats control the Senate temporarily, since it is divided 50-50 with Vice President Al Gore holding the tie-breaking vote until January 20, but the Republicans hold a narrow majority in the House.
And...
Among those Democrats who refused to sign an objection to according Florida's electoral votes to Bush were such prominent liberals as Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California, along with both Florida senators, Robert Graham and Bill Nelson, and the newly sworn-in senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Most declined to discuss their action and many did not attend the joint session. But one leading Democrat, Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, dismissed the protest by the black caucus as an empty gesture, saying, “It was a very good point they made,” and then adding, “It's over with.”
And...
There was another reason for the Senate Democrats' unanimous opposition to any further election protest. Non-support to any House objections was agreed as part of a back room deal between Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle and Republican Senate leader Trent Lott, in which the Democrats will share equally in committee seats and congressional staff positions in the newly organized Senate. The Republicans will hold all the committee and subcommittee chairmanships and Lott will still be majority leader, thanks to the tie-breaking vote held by incoming Vice President Richard Cheney.
House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt and other House Democratic leaders tacitly sanctioned this arrangement, staying away from the joint session and trying unsuccessfully to discourage any public opposition from the black caucus to the certification of Bush's Electoral College victory.
In their remarks on the floor of the House, several of the black congressmen referred bitterly to the Democratic leadership's opposition to any protest against the installation of Bush and the theft of the presidential election, although such statements were cut short by Vice President Gore, serving for the final time as presiding officer of the Senate, who ruled that no speeches could be delivered by those making objections.
“I don't care that it is not signed by a senator,” said Rep. Maxine Waters of California as she handed in her written objection. “The chair would advise that the rules do care,” Gore replied, triggering applause by Republicans.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You are not listening to me. I am saying Nader was a contributing factor.
earthside
(6,960 posts)I tend to have a certain respect for my fellow Americans.
If they voted for Nader it is because they were for Nader.
It is rather presumptuous to maintain that Nader voters would have cast a ballot for Gore if Nader wasn't in the race ... they might not have voted for President at all.
I know Republicans who talk like all Libertarians are somehow cheating their party because they are Libertarians.
I don't think the Democratic Party owns the votes of Naderites or Greens or Socialist or Peace and Freedom Party, etc.
Gore won the election -- Bush and the Supreme Court stole the presidency.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You are correct to say that the Democratic party did not own those votes but some clearly would have went to gore.
He had the right to run but there were consequences and he was a factor.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)the useless idiots who voted for him.
Or just stayed home.
Because Nader wasn't the sole, or even a major, cause, you'll never hear a Nader voter apologizing. Rationalize, of course, but apologize, never.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)the 300,000 registered dems in florida who voted for bush?
who would you say is more responsible
as a florida democrat I hold those people much more to blame
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)idiocy to go around.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)in a stolen election how do you have any confidence in any of the reported numbers.
we know harris said nader got 97000 votes but did he?
anyone who uses harris numbers to blame nader is giving her count credibility it doesn't deserve
did 300,000 (+ or -) dems in florida vote for bush or is that just where the votes ended up?
I know who I voted for in 2000 here in florida but in my opinion the only one who knows is me I have no confidence my vote was counted and if it was that it was counted correctly
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)but more to the point is that they are two separate things. Here we're talking about getting a unified vote for our candidate, but it's another battle to make sure that vote is counted properly.
Not that one is necessarily more important to the outcome than the other.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The people who refused to join "the party of Lincoln". They used to have a large impact in the party, such as blocking FDR from addressing some civil rights issues.
They've been slowly dying off. But lots of them kept their old party registration while always voting Republican.
lordsummerisle
(4,651 posts)
PDittie
(8,322 posts)
mth44sc
(2,435 posts)is that nothing short of a Democratic victory in every race that matters (federal state and local) gives us any chance of righting the wrong of the 2000 election and all of the damage it has done to this country. The stakes are too high not to own the responsibility of our future.
G_j
(40,367 posts)And we thought the Nader insanity had died down, after it had dominated GD for a few days. I can see that was a problem for someone, as now we can witness the same exact discussion (if you can call it that) one more time!! It's Ground Hog's Day!!
Reter
(2,188 posts)But if it weren't for him, the entire ACA would have been struck down two years ago.
Response to onehandle (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
msongs
(67,405 posts)
flvegan
(64,407 posts)Just wondering. You had that one Monday, and today is Wednesday. What to expect on Friday? Ooooh, I get shivers.
lol
frylock
(34,825 posts)
bobduca
(1,763 posts)so much heat, very little light.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)It's all the rage. Or maybe just all rage.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)For the tax cuts for the wealthy, the wars, right wingers to the federal bench, the debt, the economic implosion etc.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)
Rex
(65,616 posts)I know...this is DU and people are supposed to forget all about that one small fact.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Scalia is 78.
Elect a Dem in 2016 and Scalia is in his eighties.
He'll never make it to 2024 (age 88) if a Dem (ANY Dem, even a ham sandwich with a D) is elected.
On top of that, Kennedy is just three months younger than Scalia and will definitely consider retiring in the next ten years.
Either of 'em goes (and it's likely they both will have to leave) before the next Dem is out of office, and Roberts will have a sad face for the rest of his tenure and may decide to retire early (he's already sad that he could make so much more money in the private sector)
But if a Republican is elected in 2016, a far right court agenda is in the picture for the next forty years.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Gore would have won if Moorehead didn't run. Moorehead gave us Bush.
Gore would have won if all those other candidates besides Nader and Moorehead didn't run. Democracy gave us Bush.
Gore would have won if the Republicans didn't have anyone on the ballot. Bush gave us Bush.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Bill Bradley as the Democratic Party nominee would have received, very roughly, the same number of votes that Gore did.
By contrast, if Nader had decided not to run, whatever no-name took the Green line in his stead would have come nowhere near Nader's vote total. With Nader not on the ballot, some of those votes would have gone to Gore, some to Bush, and some to neither, but those going to Gore would greatly outnumber those going to Bush.
Nader had a right to run but his decision to do so was very bad.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Bush may not have received over 300,000 Dem votes, which is way more than Nader got.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Frankly, it's gotten pathetic. Any criticism of Nader is met with the same old tired cliches, the 300,000 votes being one of them.
A different Democrat would have gotten more votes than Gore in some states and fewer in other states. Big deal.
I don't think one can make a plausible case that there was some other prospective candidate who would have been significantly more popular than Gore, so as to do better in the general election, but who was somehow unable to channel that popularity into winning the primary. That's the kind of proof that would be needed to show that Gore's decision to run led to the Bush presidency.
progressoid
(49,990 posts)
BootinUp
(47,144 posts)I think everyone has had a chance to think about it the last 3 days. Righteous though!
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)How exactly is the theft of an election the fault of the third party candidate? No, Gore did not run a terribly grand campaign - but (and this is the important thing) Al Gore WON the election! What the heck does Nader have to do with it? A third party candidate who was never even a serious rival to either Gore or Bush? There are almost certainly people who, lacking the option of Nader, would have voted for Bush as opposed to Gore. Even so, Al Gore would have won. Al Gore did win - and the theft of his victory hasn't got squat to do with Darth Nader.
This has always struck me as kind of bizarre. It would be like me blaming the independent candidate for having Paul LePage as a Governor here in Maine. I could just as easily blame the democrat who ran for the loss of the independent. The vote was split pretty much three ways (Lepage had a very slight lead in the end) - but even had the third party candidate won only a tiny percentage of the vote, a Lepage victory would not be his fault. Especially if Lepage used sleazy tactics such as voter intimidation, theft, coercion, bribery - and who knows what.
This has been ridiculous since the beginning - but what convenient misdirection and finger pointing it has turned out to be for the right. I mean, if we didn't have Nader to blame, maybe we would actually point the finger where we really should and become aware enough and angry enough to realize our democracy was stolen, cheated, thwarted, made mock of - and basically proven a sham.
No, I don't blame Nader. I blame Bush and his cronies, I blame our joke of a supreme court, I blame the Florida GOP and the electoral college.
Again, the thing is - Al Gore won.
PDittie
(8,322 posts)It's a pathetic obsession for some.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)What it comes down to is Harris, the SCOTUS, the "Brooks Brothers riot" and all the rest moved the result by around two thousand votes.
We wave a magic wand and poof Nader out of the picture, and Gore probably picks up most Nader voters. Let's say he does terrible with them and he only gets 10% of Nader's voters. That's 9000 votes.
A swing of 2000 votes doesn't matter if Gore won by 9500 instead of 500.
Nader was one piece of puzzle. Gore's lousy campaign was another. The media's anti-Gore bullshit was another. The Republican evil was another. Take away any one piece, and the election can't be stolen.
It's wrong to blame Nader for all of it. It's also wrong to say Nader had no part in it. And not that having a part in it does not mean he intended to cause this result.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Earlier in 2000, the standard wisdom was that the four largest states were locked up: California and New York would go Democratic, while Florida and Texas would go Republican. It was something of a surprise when Florida turned out to be in play. My guess is that Lieberman deserves some of the credit for that. Because of his image of social conservatism (as the Democratic Senator most vocally critical of Clinton over Lewinsky), Lieberman was popular with more socially conservative people, including many of the elderly who are so important in Florida.
It's clearly true to say that, if Nader had decided not to run, Gore would have become President. It's not nearly so clear to say that, if Gore had chosen a different running mate, he would have become President.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Or, would he have won if he turned left to capture more progressives?
In either case he failed to convince enough voters to vote for him.
Blaming Nader because Gore failed to convince progressives to vote for him is sour grapes.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and slam anyone else, I am suspect of that person's agenda. Protecting Republicans from blame is not my idea of a good use of time.
