General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ralph Nader: 'Cowering' Democrats face defeat [View all]Iggy
(1,418 posts)First of all, Gore couldn't even win his home state, Tennessee. what does THAT tell us?
Second, Gore couldn't muster a win in Ohio-- critical for anyone serious about winning the election. Even
if you add Nader's votes to Gore's (pretending those voters would have automatically voted for
Gore had Nader not been on the ballot) the math doesn't work. it's still a win for W by 50,000 votes.
Third, Gore stupidly thought he was as popular as Clinton, and thought he could win _wiithout_ Clinton's help.
BIG mistake.
Finally, I was "blogging" over at Salon's public forum in 1999-2000, where 99.9% of the "progressives"
there were predicting a "landslide" victory for Gore, they were slapping their knees and guffawing loudly
over the "nobody hick governor from TX", how he "didn't have a chance against Gore", blah, blah.
Well? what happened?
Here's what: Gore was not a great candidate (outside of political Bloggo world which frequently gets it
wrong) and he ran a very dumb campaign.
Not only was this not a landslide victory, it was one of the closest races in U.S. history (if not THE closest)
in terms of the popular vote.
Blaming it all on Nader is a weak excuse.