General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Re: the recent spate of "will you vote if_____?" - aka "loyalty" threads. [View all]progree
(10,893 posts)Bush beat Gore by 537 votes in Florida. Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida etc. etc. Had Nader not been on the ballot, Gore would have won. So what "isn't true" about that? You can bleet and blather about how shitty Gore was, and I'll agree, but it doesn't change the fundamental reality that Nader knew that his campaigning in swing states was increasing the odds of Bush winning -- and succeeded in swinging the election. I hope you enjoyed the Iraq War and Shock and Awe and all those 5-4 Supreme Court rulings we've had over the last several years.
See #91 about throwing away your vote and then sanctimoniously saying, "well, the Democrat didn't earn my vote, he wasn't good and pure and wonderful enough, unlike me, who is always and pure and wonderful as the driven snow. Quixotic, yes, but fundamentally wonderful.
[font color = blue]>>32 is still blaming it on Nader, and 14 still restricts all your analysis to FL.<<[/font]
Yes, if Nader hadn't been on the ballot in Florida, Gore would have been president. Simple.
And #78 covers New Hampshire -- Nader probably didn't swing that state.