Let's Get Things Straight About Nader and Florida

[balanced]

Some people on this site are worse than right wing extremists on other sites. They go on "recollections" to back up their theses. As regards Nader and the Florida vote in 2000, it appears that Gore would have won going away if Nader had dropped out. To wit:

Nader vote even harder to justify now, Wednesday, March 17, 2004, By Gene Collier, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

"...Nearly 100,000 Floridians voted for Nader, and exit polls later showed that 47 percent of those votes would have gone to Gore and 21 percent to Bush had Nader not been on the ballot. Similar math threw New Hampshire into the Bush column with Florida, and a replay could determine the path of electoral votes in Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Wisconsin, Washington, Missouri and Ohio in November."

I would definitely like to hear Nader's reaction to this column. But Nader is a slinky dude who has, up to now, avoided the issue.

[AntiCoup2K4]

1. Florida was rigged by Jeb and Kate even before the election

and by Poppy afterwards. Remember how he decided to leave the country and "go fishing" the morning after the incomplete election? It's always been my contention that all the mysterious unsigned, unposted "overseas military ballots" were forgeries from Poppy and friends. Yeah, he went "fishing" alright :eyes:

Nader's 3% didn't help matters, but from the voter roll purges to the Supreme Court hijacking, it was the Bush Criminal Empire who fucked Florida.

[UrbScotty]

55. Florida wouldn't have mattered

Gore could have campaigned in Arizona, Missouri, West Virginia, and Ohio, instead of focusing so much on states he should have won, such has Minnesota, Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Washington.

And yes, fix or no fix, Florida would have gone to Gore in 2000, if not for Nader.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. Yeah, especially cause of New Hampshire...

Which I think will be going to Kerry this time around.

[balanced]

85. What about our democratic friends on the Florida SC

"Nader's 3% didn't help matters, but from the voter roll purges to the Supreme Court hijacking, it was the Bush Criminal Empire who fucked Florida."

Here's another if. If the Florida SC had demanded another election in Palm Beach and if the U.S. SC had not got in the way, Gore would have won rather easily.

[ant]

2. the problem...

...is that there were several specific things that happened that, if they hadn't happened, would've given the election to Gore.

It is completely true that if Nader had not run, Gore would've won FL and therefore the election.

It is also completely true that if Gore had won his own state, he would've won the election.

It is also completely true that a bunch of Jewish people in FL voted for a Nazi, and if they hadn't gotten confused Gore would've won the election.

Edited to add, now that I read the other post, that it is also completely true that Jeb and Kate rigged the FL election and denied thousands their right to vote.

It is also completely true that the Democrats appeared to roll over and let Bush take FL. If they had put up more of a fight, Gore would've won the election.

People tend to pick and choose the point they want depending on the argument they want to make. Since all points are valid, no one ever wins, and round and round we go.

However, what's also true is that the only people responsible for how people vote is the people themselves, so forget Nader. He doesn't really owe you or anyone else a defense or explanation. If you want to focus only on the FL point, take your issue directly to those Florida voters who voted for him. If you choose to focus on the FL point, the turnout is ultimately their fault.

[mistertrickster]

3. Good point, except I wouldn't call Buchanan a Nazi . . .

He's a libertarian. He was against the invasion of Iraq. The thing I can't figure out about Buchanan is everytime I see him on TV, he's toeing the Bush bot line, but whenever I read his columns, he sounds like a liberal--i.e., get the hell out of Iraq.

Also, he called the US Congress, "Israeli occupied territory" which I happen to agree with wholeheartedly.

He's a weirdo--but not exactly a Nazi, I don't think.

[AntiCoup2K4]

4. Not a Nazi, but calling him anti-semitic wouldn't be much of stretch.

...which makes it very ironic that he got so many votes in a district that has a heavy Jewish population. Even Pat himself admitted those votes weren't his.

Despite his obvious flaws, he's been on the right side of the Iraq mess. So unlike the NeoCons, he's not completely useless.

[mountainvue]

76. There was always the speculation

that Buchanan might have in fact been Deep Throat.

[ant]

6. heh

I was being facetious, sort of. You may not believe Buchanan is a Nazi, and I may not really care enough to argue the point with you, but I guarantee you little old Jewish people in FL would probably judge his comments as at least anti-semitic. The choice of words exaggerates the irony of those particular people voting for him.

[Bombtrack]

14. Buchannon is not a libertarian. Not large or small "L"

the reform party started out as somewhat small l libertarian that happened to be anti-deficit. But Buchanon turned it into somewhat right-wing populist, to fit his values, the only libertarian ones of which I can think of are lower taxes and a less stressed(by him) position of being for medicinal marijuana being legal. But he's strongly anti-immigration and anti-immigrant, for borderline protectionism, and for more religious involvement in government, all of which go against most libertarianism and are not libertine.

Whatever his positions are he's a respectable/ not mean-spirited person and not deserving of the "nazi" label

[mobuto]

15. Buchanan is NO libertarian

he's about as much an authoritarian as you're going to find. He supports government intervention in all sorts of areas, particularly on social issues.

As for being a Nazi, I don't think that's much of a stretch at all. Buchanan has come out against US involvement in the Second World War, he has come out in support of virtually every Nazi accused of war crimes for the last few decades, he's made statements admiring Hitler, he's a proven anti-Semite, etc.

[balanced]

5. Glad you agree

"It is completely true that if Nader had not run, Gore would've won FL and therefore the election." Can you get Nader to admit this?

As I have said before, during a campaign, a candidate attempts to get every advantage he/she can. Getting Nader out of the way would give Kerry an advantage. Ergo, anything we democrats can do to that end would definitely help Kerry.

We democrats can also do many other things to help in the election. But we definitely don't want history to repeat itself.

[ant]

7. again

Forget Nader. Let it go. Please, for the love of god, let it go.

Can you get Nader to admit this?

Why? Whether he admits it or not, it is a fact, and it happens to be an irrelevant fact when it comes to whether or not Nader has a basic right to run for president. He does. That is also a fact.

Again, forget Nader and focus on the voters. The argument that he needs to drop out assumes people are idiots who are easily swayed and need their choices restricted by people who know better - how fortunate that that turns out to be you, huh? (Why doesn't Kerry drop out and let Nader take on Bush?) While I might grant that that's a valid point when it comes to most of the population, I would guess that people who vote third party tend to be a little more politically informed than the general population.

Take your battle to Nader voters in swing states. It's a much more realistic, practical strategy than this weird cry for validation.

[balanced]

8. It may be irrelevant to whether Nader has a right to run,

but it is relevant, very relevant, to helping Kerry win the election. If someone can persuade Nader to drop out or even to support Kerry (which I hope some prestigous, left-wing democratic people are doing right now), this will help Kerry a lot.

I guess I'm not getting my point across. There are a lot of things we democrats can do to help Kerry. One of those things is to persuade Nader (who has the right to run, and I have never said otherwise) to support Kerry or to drop out. We don't want history to repeat itself.

[ant]

11. I'm just saying

that I don't think Nader is going to drop out, and if he does, it's not going to be because of pressure from the likes of us. We're better off focusing on voters, particularly those in swing states. The fact of Nader won't matter if no one votes for him, and reaching voters is much more doable than reaching Nader.

But I would like to add one thing: don't be accusatory. Don't put people on the defensive. Calmly discuss with them why it's important to support Kerry over Nader, particularly in swing states.

[Kanary]

25. What do you mean about "focus on the voters"?

Could you please clarify?

I was with you completely up til you got to that point.

I'm so tired of all the frantic screaming at people here who are *not* happy with Kerry as the choice, and accusing these people of so many idiotic things, that I'm to the point of figuring it doesn't really matter whether I vote or not.

I can guarantee you, yelling at people in my neighborhood in this manner is only going to assure that there will be a lot fewer voters.

So, I hope you will delineate what you mean about "focus".

Kanary, already fed up with the whole mess

[ant]

28. by focus...

...I guess I mean that no one's mind is going to be changed by people demanding apologies and admissions of guilt. The anti-Nader crowd seems to think that brute force and simply repeating assertions is going to somehow reach people. They don't even seem to want to reach people; they just want Nader and all his supporters to yell "you're right, I'm wrong, you're a god, I'm an idiot, etc." That's never going to happen.

I think, too, that constantly talking about Nader the man just incites the mob mentality of those who hate him as well as the mob mentality of those who will defend him at all costs. It just puts everyone on the defensive and makes them less willing to keep an open mind. It turns into a Nader is Evil vs. Nader is a God issue, and who cares? He's a human being, so that's not even a legitimate debate to have, really.

Anyway, rather than start threads like this, threads that automatically have a confrontational tone, people should focus on actually talking to Nader supporters and trying to (A) understand where they're coming from and (B) trying to figure out how to make a Kerry vote appealing to them. (I've seen pro-lifers converted to the pro-choice side, by the way, and after seeing that I'm pretty confident that there's always a possibility you can change someone's mind. The trick is getting to the heart of what that person is most concerned about and showing them how your approach suits their needs better. And it takes PATIENCE, lots and lots of patience.)

I'll grant that there are unreasonable Nader supporters out there who just can't be reached, people who will avoid the questions and live in denial just to believe whatever suits them. BUT, at least if you try and fail you still tried. As it is, people aren't even trying, which makes it hard for me to take their self-righteous accusations that seriously. It's like they want divine intervention to fix the problem rather than make any effort to address it themselves.

[Kanary]

29. Thanks for clarifying

I think I agree with just about everything you're saying.

However, given this is DU, I doubt that anyone will actually *listen*.

Many of us who have serious reservations about Kerry have been shouted into submission, but that doesn't mean we have been "converted".

If Kerry people would actually *LISTEN*, and actually care abut the concerns being brought up, they ihgt learn something, and miht even find ways of dealing with those concerns that would build bridges rather than burning them.

But, burning seems to be a way of life here.

Wonder how that's working out for people, and the party?

Kanary

[ant]

44. yeah, I'm learning that

However, given this is DU, I doubt that anyone will actually *listen*.

I think part of it is the forum. It just doesn't really lend itself to slow, meaningful discussions. The anonymous nature of it all also makes people more willing to just shout each other down. And then, of course, as everywhere in life, there are just those people who refuse to listen because they just can't ever admit any sort of mistake at all.

Many of us who have serious reservations about Kerry have been shouted into submission, but that doesn't mean we have been "converted".

I have many reservations, too. I went to New Hampshire so I could see all the candidates before making up my mind, and Dean just automatically grabbed me. I think the issues he spoke to are close to those that Nader speaks to, too. I just don't like Kerry, either. When I went to his rally he came across so packaged.

I voted for Nader in 2000. I certainly prefer him over Kerry just as I preferred him to Gore, but I also believe in supporting third parties and I did NOT live in a swing state. The calculation has changed for me this time and unless my state is clearly going one way or the other I will vote for Kerry.

If Kerry people would actually *LISTEN*, and actually care abut the concerns being brought up, they ihgt learn something, and miht even find ways of dealing with those concerns that would build bridges rather than burning them.

I guess burning those bridges is more fun? :shrug:


Edited because I did NOT live in a swing state...very important.

[Kanary]

53. I know that many people blame the burning bridges here

on the structure of the forum.

Given that I've seen some good discussions, and you and I have been able to discuss, I have a hard time putting it all down to that.

I also know there are "insurgents" who love to stir things up.

But, I also think it's much more than that.

There are simply people who enjoy bullying, and don't have a problem trying to reconcile their Dem believfs with the fun of bullying.

So, bridges burn.

Burn, baby, burn.

And the party suffers.

Kanary

[balanced]

33. This is silly.

I too believe that "... people should focus on actually talking to Nader supporters and trying to (A) understand where they're coming from and (B) trying to figure out how to make a Kerry vote appealing to them." But why not try to get Nader, himself, to change his mind? What's wrong with that?

The first thing that Nader must acknowledge is that IF HE HAD DROPPED OUT IN FLORIDA, GORE WOULD NOW BE PRESIDENT. That gives Nader a reason to support the ticket--egad, Bush. Apparently, this is not enough of a reason to support the ticket. So, next we must find out how Nader balances things in his own mind. And then convince him that a Bush presidency cannot be balanced against anything. It is too horrid to contemplate.

[ant]

41. again, knock yourself out

The past four years haven't convinced Nader to drop out, but I'm sure you can. :eyes:

Like I originally said, the problem with this approach is that there are a lot of things that happened that, if they hadn't happened, would've changed the outcome. You say, "if only A would've been different!" and he'll come back with, "if only B would've been different!" and round and round you'll go. You're both right, that's the problem, and just as he won't submit to you, you won't submit to him.

I'm not going to stand in your way, of course, I just thought I'd point out the futility.

[Padraig18]

48. These people *only* want to focus on Nader.

Trying to draw attention to the MANY other things that cost Gore the election is like teaching a pig to sing--- it wastes your time, and annoys the pig. :shrug:

[ant]

51. teaching a pig to sing

I'm starting to think that would actually be a more productive way to spend my evening.

[balanced]

56. I would agree with Nader 100%, but

I would still point out that he could have handed the election to Gore, but instead, he was a factor, and a deciding factor in Florida, in the Bush victory. All I want is for Nader to agree that Gore would have been president if he had dropped out in Florida. I can also think of a dozen other reasons why Gore would have been president. It is a simple concept: IF NADER HAD DROPPED OUT IN FLORIDA, GORE WOULD NOW BE PRESIDENT.

[Padraig18]

47. This isn't a confessional.

Nader do0esn't 'have to acknowledge' a god-damned thing, for starters. The sheer arrognace of the demand is breath-taking... :wtf:

[Padraig18]

30. History won't repeat itself, if Kerry doesn't screw up like Gore did

At every critical juncture in the whole FL debacle, Gore's campaign made the wrong choice. Furthermore, if Kerry will make a genuine effort to appeal to Nader's supporters, he may actually get enough of them that Nader will be irrelevant, which I suspect he will be any way, withput Green Party backing.

[balanced]

36. History won't repeat itself if

Nader supports the ticket. We won't lose because NADER DIDN'T DROP OUT IN FLORIDA.

[Padraig18]

38. Yeah, right.

Gore's 'loss' in FL had damned little to do with Nader, although some are too obsessed with Nader to be able to see that.

[Old and In the Way]

9. Let it go? Hell, no.

We can't do anything about the results of 2000. But we can and should remind the voters about how a 2004 Nader candidacy, bankrolled again by thr Republican Party, is simply an RNC election tactic to help the chances of GWB's re-election.

While many Nader voters have seen the light, there's a whole new crop of 1st time voters who are politically naive/ideal and who might be tempted to bite on Ralph's Big Lie - there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

So, I don't plan to "let it go". I'm sure George Bush and the Republican Party would wish we would, but I won't be accommodating their wish.

In this election, we also have HAVA to contend with....Ralph can help blur the results and provide more cover for stealing he election. If Ralph cares about this country as much as he claims, he shouldn't let himself be used to help engineer another stolen election.

[ant]

12. let NADER go

Until you guys let go of this Nader hatred you're not going to reach anyone. Your arguments drip with contempt - do you think that's going to help you reach voters? Do you think you're going to convince people of anything when your very obvious hatred of Nader is being aimed at them?

Besides, all this hostility can't be good for your soul. Focus on what you can change - namely the minds of voters - and stop demanding apologies from Nader. He doesn't owe them to you and you're not going to get them, so let THAT go and, as I've said a million times now, respectfully address his supporters and try to change their minds.

[Old and In the Way]

16. "you guys"

'nuff said.

[ant]

17. huh?

until you people
until those who hate nader
until those DU members who keep posting on this
until y'all
until the men and women who feel my comment might apply to them


Take your pick, I don't really care. I just meant "you guys" like I would say to my friend, "where'd you guys go last night?"

If picking on my choice of "pronoun" is all you've got, THEN 'nuff has certainly been said.

[Old and In the Way]

18. George Bush appreciates your support

:-)

[ant]

22. that's nice

FYI, I'm not even a Nader supporter.

Your effort to get to know me before making a comment like that is truly impressive, though. No wonder those who think like you are doing such a great job of converting the Nader supporters.

:eyes:

You're just as stubborn and narrow in your thinking as they are. "You guys" truly deserve each other.

[Old and In the Way]

26. Yes, I hear that line of reasoning all the time from Bush supporters.

Watch what you say and talk nice or we going to vote for Nader just to piss you off. hehehehehe

[AntiCoup2K4]

40. Why would it bother you if Bush supporters voted for Nader?

(not that it's very likely to happen)

[Old and In the Way]

45. great, the more the merrier!

[balanced]

19. You mean we shouldn't try to convince Nader that he should

support the ticket? One "fact" we can use to try to change his mind is that in the 2000 election, if he would have dropped out of Florida, Gore would now be president. He should acknowledge this "fact." Are you saying that this "fact" doesn't mean anything to Nader? This don't confuse me with "facts" attitude is not the way to win a war, especially against an incumbent president.

[ant]

23. do you think...

...this is new information to Nader? Do you have some NEW way of presenting this OLD fact to Nader in a why that's going to make him say, "gee, I hadn't thought of it that way. You're right. I'll drop out"?

This isn't about being confused with facts, it's about people being so hell bent on proving to the world that they're right, that their position is the correct one, that they completely overlook how their attitude is hurting the cause they claim to support. It's not about politics or discussion, it's about everyone's ego. (And Nader's not the only one who's got one, that much is crystal fucking clear.)

But hey, enough of my crazy talk. You go out into this forum, and into the world, and you see how many hearts and minds you can reach by playing the blame game and all the rest. You let me know how many people you reach with that approach.

In the meantime, I'm going to talk to those Nader voters I meet and, if they're voting in swing states (just a condition I have to reduce the number of people I have to engage in this sort of thing), I will calmly and respectfully talk to them about why I think they should change their vote.

If you prefer to write Nader letters and keep making the same old arguments in the same old ways, knock yourself out.

[balanced]

37. As I said before,

I hope that the powers that be in the party are encouraged to keep at Nader to convince him to support the ticket. Your idea that Nader can't be convinced should not be the basis for action by party leaders. And it might help if people like Streisand, Donahue, and Sarandon would help also. Donahue was a rabid Naderite--maybe still is.

And I wish you would quit saying the obvious: Try to convince the Naderites that they should support the ticket. Obviously, we will continue to try and convince the Naderites of our position.

[ant]

43. if it's so obvious...

...why aren't you getting it?

And I wish you would quit saying the obvious: Try to convince the Naderites that they should support the ticket. Obviously, we will continue to try and convince the Naderites of our position.

And do you think bashing Nader, questioning his basic right to run, etc., is going to help or hurt that effort?

I don't care what party leaders do behind closed doors, but as long as the anti-Nader crowd takes a hostile stand towards Nader it is automatically taking a hostile stand against his supporters as well, and you can not get meaningful discussion from that position.

Did you notice what the pro-Nader responses here have been? Didn't they confirm my Many Facts theory about point-counterpoint? Did you get anywhere with these people or was it all a lot of half-witty remarks and insults thrown back and forth? How much longer will we all have to suffer through this cycle before someone finally breaks it?

That's all I'm saying.

[Colin Ex]

66. If I may add a point --

Nader himself maintains (accurately, in my humble opinion) that Gore won Florida.

Just thought you'd like to know.

-C

[rock]

10. Gore won Forida by 50,000 votes

Nader did not have anything to do with those votes not being counted.

[no name no slogan]

13. And he would have won by 80,000 had 30,000 FL Dems not voted Bush

There were at least 30,000 FL Dems who voted for Shrub in 2000. If even those voters had voted the party line, it would have helped Gore.

This is proof, again, that Nader played an insignificant role in the whole Florida fiasco. Gore could not appeal to those other 30,000 Dems who voted for Shrub, so what does that say about his campaign? It was poorly executed, poorly led, and constantly played catch-up to Shrub, instead of playing off the popularity and success of Clinton.

The only person who lost for Gore in 2000 was Gore and his campaign. Now, can we PLEASE move on to this year already?

[Doomsayer13]

20. DINO's who haven't changed party registration

technically, most of the southern states have high Democratic registration, remnants from the old Dixicrat regimes. So are you suggesting we move to the right to accomodate these DINO's?

[ant]

24. that's a good point

It could be argued, I think, that know that those Bush supporting Dems have seen more of Bush in action they might turn back to Kerry and reduce Nader's potential impact.

I think the Dem's motivation and pure outrage this time around - particularly in FL, not just at Bush but over how 2000 was handled - is a new variable here.

[Kanary]

39. Yes, a lot has changed that points to a encouraging direction

But, the Nader haters can successfully torpedo the encouragement by screaming at everyone who dares to voice a different opinion.

Dems can learn *NOT* to shoot themselves in the foot.

Or not.

Kanary

[Padraig18]

42. But holding grudges and throwing tantrums is so much more FUN!

:P

[balanced]

52. I like friendly persuasion, but

with a dose of reality. The democrats are fighting an incumbent president who has the aura of a wartime leader. We need all of the help we can get. I hope that the democratic leadership can get to Nader. If not, it could be a repeat of 2000.

[balanced]

50. You can catch more flies with...

[TruthIsAll]

63. Your argument sucks. Only 87% of Dems vote Dem. Even for Clinton..

92% of Repukes vote Repuke. They are monolithic.

Nader cost Gore 30,000 votes, since 2/3 of his 96,000 votes would have gone to Gore..
Jeb Bush and K. Harris disenfranchised 90,000 voters, mostly dems.
The Butterfly Queen had 10,000 or more Palm Beach Dems vote for Buchanan.
Puke Election workers double punched 100,000 Votes, 70,000 for Gore.
Pukes allowed thousands of illegal Bush absentee votes in.

Not to mention the 70,000 chads.

[balanced]

21. True, True

But he did have something to do with taking votes away from Gore. This is a "fact." Will this occur again? Will history repeat itslef? Democrats should do what they can to prevent history from repeating itslef.

[Padraig18]

27. And if my uncle had breasts, he'd be my aunt.

The fact of the matter is, Nader did not 'cost' Gore Florida. The SCOTUS did, the illegal purge of voters rolls did, the failure to seek a statewide recount did, the crappy campaign Donna Brazille ran for Gore did, Gore's decision to pull out of Ohio did, etc., etc., etc. .

As far as getting things 'straight' about Florida, your post does anything but; it merely rehashes a bunch of suppositions and hypotheticals, while ignoring the reality that Nader had every right to run and people had every right to vote as they did. If anyone is failing to get it 'straight' about FL in 2000, it's the folks who continue to want to hold Nader somehow responsible.

[balanced]

31. It has nothing to do with Nader's right to do anything.

It's a simple statement: IF NADER HAD DROPPED OUT OF FLORIDA, GORE WOULD BE PRESIDENT TODAY. What backs up this statement: The exit polls showed that 47% of approximately 100,000 Nader voters would have voted for Gore and 21% would have voted for Bush.

Is simple arithmetic too hard to swallow? You Naderites should be asking old Ralph to support the ticket rather than trying to rationalize his actions. Again, the exit polls show that IF NADER HAD DROPPED OUT OF FLORIDA, GORE WOULD BE PRESIDENT TODAY.

[Padraig18]

32. I'm not a Naderite.

The point is, as my subject line indiacted, this 'what if...?' stuff is just that--- pointless speculation, and it serves no purpose whatsoever to keep re-hashing it.

[balanced]

34. It is not pointless if

we can use it to convince Nader to support the ticket. We don't want history to repeat itself. It's not pointless.

[Padraig18]

35. No one will convince Nader, except Kerry.

That's the long and the short of it.

[ant]

46. there you go, balanced

Instead of getting the party leaders to pressure Nader, why not get them to negotiate with him? Perhaps if Kerry were to promise to pick up/address, in a meaningful way somehow, Nader's big issues then he'd agree to drop out and support the ticket.

Coalition building and all that.

[Kanary]

54. BINGO!

1. Kerry has some work to do, to address the WHOLE party

2. Coalition building.

Imagine that.

The DLC can bloody noses, or bring the party back to what it stands for.

Bridges. Build or burn.

Imagine.

Kanary

[balanced]

58. Exactly what I was thinking of. And I am sure

this is what the party regulars are thinking of also. Negotiation and friendly persuasion, but with a dose of reality. We don't want a repeat of 2000.

[Kanary]

60. I don't need "persuasion", and neither does anyone I know

That's actually a bit patronizing, don't ya think?

It implies that we don't know what we're doing, and need to be "educated".

While I can easily believe, after reading some of the rabid posts on this forum, that there are some "Dems" who wouldn't hesitate to establish "reeducation camps" for some of us, I would think that some of you can understand it doesn't really accomplish your goals.

We're already "educated". We need to be taken seriously.

Can that happen?

Kanary

[Cuban_Liberal]

61. Then run a better campaign, and prevent farud.

Nader was only one SMALL part of the reason Gore wasn't elected.

[sangh0]

88. Blaming the victim

How incredibly Republican.

Nader was only one SMALL part of the reason Gore wasn't elected

Tha's not a good reason to justify a 2nd run. "Nader only helped them steal the election a little bit"

[Cuban_Liberal]

91. In case it wasn't obvious...

Nader doesn't have to justify his run to you, or anyone else. The last time I looked, it was still a semi-free country. Furthermore, it doesn't help our party to continue to pretend that the 2000 Gore campaign wasn't a massive clusterfuck; doing so only enables the likelihood that we'll get sucker-punched by the Republicans again.

Still, if it make you feel better to piss, whine and moan about Nader, knock yourself out. :eyes:

[sangh0]

92. Avoiding the issue

In another example of Naderites demonstrating their distance from reality, instead of addressing my point that blaming Democrats for the theft of an election is a form of "blaming the victim", Cuban_Liberal instead raises the straw man argument that Nader has a right to run, refuting an argument that no one in this long thread has made.

[Cuban_Liberal]

94. He isn't blaming Democrats for the loss.

Talk about a straw man! He clearly said that Nader contributed to Gore's loss, but he also makes it crystal clear that other things--- things that the Gore campaign itself did/failed to do--- also contributed to the loss.

If people would quit trying to put words in his mouth, asking him leading questions and distorting the plain meaning of what he has consistently written throughout this thread, then they might get answers to their alleged 'questions'... :eyes:

[sangh0]

108. Avoiding the issue, again

Instead of defending the way you put responsibility for preventing the theft of an election on the Democratic Party (ie "Then run a better campaign, and prevent farud.") instead of where it rightly belongs, you try to excuse it by saying how at other times you have acknowledged other factors.

If that's an excuse then why did you say "Then run a better campaign, and prevent farud." By your own words, there were many factors that contributed to this, but your solution (ie "Then run a better campaign, and prevent farud.") puts responsibility on the Dems, and no one else.

[Padraig18]

114. Oh, horseshit!

That is the most absurd, obtuse piece of pseudo-logic and/or drivel I have ever seen posted on DU! :eyes:

[balanced]

49. This is probably true, but

I would like the democratic powers to try to get those close to Nader to convince him to support the ticket. Keep at it. Don't give up. Get Donahue on our side. Talk to Margo. But get the job done. ETC.

[Kanary]

57. Or, alternatively, actually LISTEN to people

That USED to be what the Dems were about.

Kanary

[balanced]

59. Listening is good.

[MessiahRp]

62. Nader is part of the problem

Anyone who just tries to pass Florida's issues off as the Republican scam fails to realize that Nader also was a problem. Eliminate either and we never go through this shitty past 3 years of Bush.

That being said unlike some people here at DEMOCRATic Underground, I am a DEMOCRAT and in major national elections when my future and my country's future is at stake, I will vote DEMOCRAT and not even dance around a third party.

On a local level if there are better Green Party candidates running I will give them a look and possibly a vote, but hey Nader's not even wanted by the Greens now, so my point is that if you don't want your country to flush deeper into the toilet than it has, and four years on not facing a future electorate for Bushco is a scary thought, then you won't even consider Nader at all. Kerry is the ONLY choice and a pretty damned good one if I must say so myself.

If you plan to vote for Nader, you WANT your country to be destroyed because it's quite obvious what four more years of Bush will do.

Rp

[Bill Todd]

64. "balanced"? Hardly

Save possibly in the Faux News sense.

But at least my challenge seems to have caused you to actually find a citation for your blather. Too bad it turns out to be an incompetent one - because it attempts to apply nation-wide exit-polling data to 'predict' a specific outcome in Florida.

Now, it turns out that my 'recollection' about New Hampshire Nader voting was correct: Nader drew significantly more support from Republicans than from Democrats in NH, and probably drew more votes from Bush than from Gore (leaving completely aside the fact that in a two-way race Bush would have picked up a ton of votes from Buchanan and won comfortably). NH is of course likely more conservative than FL, which is why I challenged you to come up with similar exit-poll data for FL to support your otherwise completely unsubstantiated assertions.

A couple of minutes with Google did turn up something more substantive: http://nhindymedia.org/newswire/display/535/index.php . I don't claim that this is necessarily an unbiased evaluation, but at least it has some hard data in it to digest - and those who actually care about quantitative evidence rather than hot air might do well to assimilate it, while others will, as usual, simply continue to believe what they're already convinced is true, that being the more comfortable course of (in)action.

Of course, feel free to try to dig up countervailing evidence should you be so inclined: I certainly don't pretend to be sure about precisely what impact Nader had on FL (or Nader, or all third-party candidates put together, had nationally), and would welcome any additional information as long as it's based on hard FL exit-polling data (since my reference above is still less than absolutely definitive).

- bill

[balanced]

77. Interesting article

I would like to see this exit polling data in terms of actual numbers.

"In Florida, CNN's exit polling showed Nader taking the same amount of votes from both Republicans and Democrats: 1 percent."

Since only a 500-vote difference was involved, 1 percent rounded one way or the other can make a big difference.

It seems a lot more definitive to ask who you would have voted for in a two person race, however. And these data show that Gore would have been the benificiary--big time.

However, I am not at all adverse to prodding the data to determine whether the thesis that IF NADER HAD WITHDRAWN IN FLORIDA, GORE WOULD HAVE WON THE ELECTION is teneble.

I don't know who Tony Schinella is, and so I can't comment on his expertise or the publication's prestige. But I will say that I should have searched further on Google.

I would still like Nader to comment directly on the thesis that he cost Gore the election because of the Florida deal, especially if he not only would have dropped out but also would have endorsed Gore.

[DemPopulist]

84. I really don't like stepping into the Nader-Gore debate

It's sooooo old. But I feel I have to point out how whack the analysis on that page is (though a writer a few posts down does a pretty good job at it him/herself).

The main thing the first writer is ignoring is the inaccuracy of the network exit polls. I couldn't find a link for the CNN numbers the Naderite is citing there, but I did find some exit polls on MSNBC that I assume are the same as CNN's (and the other nets).

Do the math on the numbers at the top of the survey:

GORE BUSH BUCHANAN NADER
Are you:
% of total category % of category

51 Male 40 53 1 4
49 Female 53 44 0 3

If those numbers were accurate, Bush would've beaten Gore in New Hampshire by a 49-46 margin, instead of the 48-47 of the actual results.

Then you have these numbers the writer cites:

GORE BUSH BUCHANAN NADER
If these were the only two presidential candidates, who would you vote for?
% of total category % of category

47 Gore 95 1 0 3
48 Bush 3 95 0 2
4 Would not have voted 0 0 0 0

These are quoted in the piece to suggest that there would've been no difference in the results in a two-way race. In coming to this conclusion, the writer is ignoring the simple facts that a) the network exit polls overestimated Bush's win; b) taking the exit poll inaccuracy into account, the numbers above suggest that Gore would've gained a percentage point and Bush would've lost the same amount in a no-Nader, no-Buchanan race; c) if the same percent of gain/loss for the two candidates is imposed on the actual results, Gore would've won NH 48-47.

Btw, looking through the MSNBC stats, Bush's support was overestimated in many states - including Florida - and that's the probable explanation for the bogus Al From contention that Bush would've beaten Gore by a point nationwide if they had been the only two candidates on the ballot.

[MadHound]

65. LOL,,speaking of cites friend

It seems that you have a dirth of them. Here, let me provide you some cited sources in regards to Gore's fuck up of Florida '00. Granted, Nader was part, a very small part of Gore's downfall in Florida. But there are many other issues you have to address before you can even conceivably pin the blame on Nader. Let's start at the top shall we:

1. Gore's failure to uphold his sworn oath of office vis a vis the disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida. Greg Palast handed the entire votescrubbing scandal to Gore and his campaign early on in the recount process. Names, dates, methods, the whole ball of wax, with the count at 50,000 voters and rising(final total was around 100,000). Think of it, this would have won Gore the election, banished the Bushies to the political wilderness forever, and he would have upheld his sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution to boot. Yet what did Gore and his handlers do with this golden opportunity? They sat on it. You can read more in Greg Palast's book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."

2. Gore and his handlers picked the exact wrong method of doing the recount. Instead of doing the correct thing, the logical thing, the winning thing, that is recount the entire state, Gore chose instead to cherry pick which counties and precints he wished to recount. You can read more about this in the previously cited Palast book, also Jim Hightower's book "If the Gods had Wanted Us to Vote, They Would Have Given Us Candidates" In addition, Kevin Phillips touches on this issue in his newest release "American Dynasty".

4. Gore pissed off 398,000 registered Dems and 198,000 self described liberals with his oil friendly offshore drilling policy in Florida. Responding to his corporate master's wishes(BP Amaco specifically) Gore backed the proposition of offshore drilling in the Gulf, close to Florida's pristine beaches. The aforementioned Dems and liberals were so pissed by this move on the part of the "enviromental candidate" that they decided to double screw Gore, and voted for Bush. Note, these aren't Dixiecrats or Reagan Dems, they all switched parties decades ago, these are the real deal Dems and liberals. You would think that Gore would have modified his position on this, being an election year and all, but I guess that the wishes of his corporate masters was more important. You can reference the previously mentioned Hightower book for further information on this issue.

5. Gore's lacksidaisical attitude vis a vis the recount. While the 'Pugs poured in money and political talent, the Democrats floundered around trying not to offend anyone, while proceeding to offend almost everyone. Outspent and outgunned, the recount campaign was destined for failure. You would have thought that with the highest office in the land on the line, that the Dems would have done what the 'Pugs did, bring in the A team and all the cash that could be raised. But instead they appeared overwhelmed and outgunned from the get go. You can find more on this angle in the previously mentioned Phillips book.

6. Then there was the matter of the Supreme Court and their fraudelent ruling, but hey, we know all about that.

7. And finally, we get to Nader's influence in this matter. Yes, he did take nearly 100,000 votes in Florida. But would these votes necessarily have gone to Gore? Al From doesn't seem to think so: "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race." <http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919>

So what are we left with here? A Gore campaign that wasn't aggressive enough, and at times appeared to be completely inept. The candidate himself seemed more bent on appeasing his corporate masters and not appearing to offend anybody than on running a hard hitting, effective campaign. And yet, for some reason people insist on demonizing a man simply because he exercised his Constitutional right to run for office. Perhaps it is time for the Nader haters to get beyond their blind, unproductive anger at a strawman and take a long dispassionate look at the real reason for the failure in '00. I think some of the answers they would walk away with will suprise them.

[Cuban_Liberal]

67. Don't confuse them with the facts.

They have much more fun bashing fellow progressives...

[sangha]

68. Here's a fact you left out

Nader continuously claims that he is running to have an influence on the parties. Yet, his supporters continue to claim that in 2000, Nader had no effect on the election.

[Cuban_Liberal]

69. "Parties".... "election"

Two entirely different things.

[sangha]

70. Yeesh

Try

"Nader continuously claims that he is running to have an influence on the parties. Yet, his supporters continue to claim that in 2000, Nader had no effect on the parties."

AND

"Nader continuously claims that he is running to have an influence on the election. Yet, his supporters continue to claim that in 2000, Nader had no effect on the election."

Both are true. Here are two more:

"Nader continuously claims that he is running to have an influence on politics. Yet, his supporters continue to claim that in 2000, Nader had no effect on politics."

"Nader continuously claims that he is running to have an influence on the Democrats. Yet, his supporters continue to claim that in 2000, Nader had no effect on the Democrats"

[Cuban_Liberal]

71. No one ever said he had 'no effect' on 2000.

His effect, however, was marginal, compared to the OTHER things that had an effect on 2000. Are you ready to talk about THOSE things, or shall we continue to play 'let's bash Nader' some more? I'm frankly more worried about a repeat of OUR mistakes in 2004 than I am about Ralph Nader.

[sangha]

73. So you admit it?

Nader DID have an effect

you ready to talk about THOSE things

Already done. We've talked it to death. No one here disagrees that those other things were factors, which probably explains why no one argues about it.

shall we continue to play 'let's bash Nader' some more?

That depends. If people want to continue claiming that Nader was not a factor at all, I'll continue to point out that Nader was a factor. And if people want to continue arguing that Nader will have a good influence on politics, I'll continue to point out that he won't.

[Cuban_Liberal]

74. Read my posts.

I never claimed Nader was not a factor, so i don't know who you're arguing with.

[sangha]

75. I have

I refer you to the Nader thread you started, where you say that people who are worried that Nader might throw the election do so because they blame Nader for all of the problems in 2000. I also refer you to my last post in that thread, which has gone unresponded to.

We do not blame Nader for EVERYTHING that went wrong in 2000. We also blame Katherine Harris, etc. However, we don't argue over them because we all agree, more or less, on their having had an effect. No one on DU is foolish enough to defend Jeb Bush.

On the other hand, we do argue about Nader because there are people who are foolish enough to argue that Nader did not contribute to the theft of an election in order to justify their arguing that Nader's running in 2004 is not a Bad Thing.

Nader is now officially, an Evil, Evil Man. It is shameless for him to run after having run in 2000 and contributed to the theft of democracy. You yourself admit that he contributed to this, but you'll keep defending him.

His running, in your own opinion, had a negative effect, but you'll continue to argue that this time it will have a good effect.

[Cuban_Liberal]

79. Quit misconstruing what I say, thank you.

I've never said his running was a 'good thing'--- not ever. Furthermore, what I have said about his effect in 2000 is that it was one of the s-m-a-l-l-e-r factors in Gore's defeat. Finally, I have not 'defended' him; what I have done is to set forth a rational examination of his role in 2000, one free of the knee-jerk, reactionary hysteria that so many on this board demonstrate.

[sangh0]

80. A rational examination of Nader's role in 2000

clearly shows that he contributed to the theft of an election. No matter how much you want to discount his role, his contribution to the theft of democracy does not support a second run.

If you want to engage in the virtual equivalent of gazing into your navel, you are free to come to some precise and reasonable evaluation of just how much/little Nader contributed to the greatest crime in US history. I choose to consider anyone who enables Bush* an enemy, and I don't care if they're a general or a private.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

83. An objective evaluation of Nader's 2000 run

clearly shows that he contributed to the theft of an election. No matter how much you want to discount his role, his contribution to the theft of democracy does not support a second run or your ridiculous claim that Nader's run will have a beneficial effect.

[balanced]

86. Hear, hear

And some of the recent polls show about the same results as the 2000 exit polls--Nader voters go for democrats about 2 to 1 over republicans.

Zogby, 3-21 poll: Without Nader 48-46 Kerry; with Nader 46-46 Tie.
Fox, 3-25 poll: Without Nader 44-44 Tie; with Nader 43-42 Bush.

These polls show about a 2-1 Naderite preference for democrats over republicans.

[sangh0]

87. And if the Nader voters were Republicans

it sure would blow to hell the Naderite argument that a Nader run is a way to pressure the Dems.

They use whatever argument is politically expedient, and forget all about it when it's inconvenient to remember.

[balanced]

78. We all have the same goal, I hope.

Ergo, anything which can be "fixed" should be discussed. Nader is included in this "fixing" strategy.

[sangh0]

81. I'd like to "fix" Nader

Maybe then, he'd stop his political maturbation

[Ardee]

89. would you really like to hear what Nader says?

I doubt that your pose is anything but artifice to support your already firmed up opinion. If you believe that Nader has not addressed your question ad nauseum it is only because you, like most Nader bashers, havent a clue as to his stance, refuse to read his words, are simply content to hide in ignorance of his very accessible answers to your questions:

In 1992—I went up to New Hampshire before the primary date and spent about 10 days of intensive campaigning for a none-of-the-above option on each ballot line. I met with thousands of New Hampshirites in civic and school auditoriums in town after town saying that if they did not like any of the candidates on the ballot, they could write in my name as None Of The Above. Write-ins are made difficult by the authorities in that state. Nonetheless, of the thousands of votes I received, 51% were Republicans and 49% were Democrats. In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all. A poll this March in New Hampshire showed I had the support of 8% of all voters -- 10% of Independents, 9% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats.

I hope you will consider joining our Independent campaign for President.
and...
Wednesday March 31, 2004
Dear Anybody But Bush Liberal Democrats
If you wish to defeat George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in November, restore the House and/or the Senate to the Democrats and continue to build a longer term progressive political movement, enlisting the young, middle-aged and elderly together, beyond November 2004.... and you have some doubts as to whether the Democrats can do this by themselves, this letter is for you.

Let's face the facts. Our country has serious problems. The world is not doing very well. We need every source of energy inside the electoral arena to turn harmful, costly and cruel trends against billions of innocent people into just and healthy directions.

The electoral system in our country is rigged in many ways against third parties and independent candidates having a level playing field chance to compete. This leaves the two major Parties to regenerate themselves internally without external pushes and jolts. The Republicans generate themselves with corporate batteries while the Democrats try to play catch up in the corporate money-raising sweepstakes. So it is not surprising that many people are left with the least of the worst choice and TAKE it, assuming you are not in a single party district. After all, they know they are all hostages to this winner-take-all electoral college strait jacket. They realize that the political terrain is rigged to leave them as of now with just that choice if they want to be with a possible winner, which most voters want to be. A modern full representation system to make more votes count should become part of our national political debate. One version – multi-seat districts – elected the first woman, Jeanette Rankin, to Congress from Montana in 1916.

Apart from their ways, the Democrats need to be shown additional ways -- strong, rational, emotive ways to defeat Bush and the Republicans. Why? Because their leaders and consultants are either too cautious, too unimaginative or too indentured to vested interests to even conceive, not to mention field test, these vulnerabilities of the Bush regime.

Enter an independent candidacy in a duopolized system that does not believe the election has to be totally enclosed by zero-sum gaming among the major candidates. Instead there should be various strategies and probes and anticipations inside the electoral arena that in important ways escape the zero-sum mind so as to more likely achieve the common goal of ouster.

Here is what I mean. Campaigns must have distinct approaches -- not only to get more votes on one's side but also to depress the votes on the other side. The latter voters either stay home or switch to another candidate, other than the major opponent, as a protest vote. In 2000, exit polls showed that 21% or 25% of my vote would have gone to Bush, 38% or 41% to Gore, and the rest would not have voted. Counter-intuitive, isn't it? Not if you know that conservative and libertarian Republicans have not been happy with the corporate Republicans who dominate the party and concede to their right wing the verbal platforms to keep them in line. Now, many conservative or libertarian Republicans are furious with Bush over the massive deficits, taxpayer-funded, corporate subsidies, the Patriot Act's invasion of privacy and undermining of civil liberties, the impaired sovereignty issues in NAFTA and GATT, uncontrolled corporate pornography beamed to their children in violent commercial entertainment -- to name some points of serious disappointments. Not a few of them are outraged over the corporate looting by executive greed and crimes, exemplified by the Enrons, World Coms and Tycos (they lost jobs, 401K’s and investments too) and believe that Bush/Cheney are too close to these companies to launch a crackdown that will convict and jail these executive crooks. This is why they like CNN’s Lou Dobbs' regular reminders about these crooks *not* being sent to jail.

The Democrats need to be shown in the field how to appeal to the millions of voters whom they have turned their back on because many of them are against abortion and gun control. It is one thing when litmus paper tests are applied to candidates by groups or voters, but candidates are foolish to do this in reverse -- after all even your friends don't agree with you on everything.

Moreover, an independent candidacy that generates more political and civic energies by the American people helps to generate more understandings and support for major new directions for our country -- realistic long overdue directions. You want to be reminded of them? Here's a short list -- full public financing of public elections -- merits not money should rule here; universal health insurance -- 55 years after President Truman proposed this to Congress (overdue?); a serious drive to abolish poverty (Nixon proposed one preliminary way to Congress); a living wage for tens of millions of workers making under $10 an hour (adjust to inflation and even the 1968 federal minimum wage could be $8 an hour today, not $5.15); strong enforcement against corporate crime, fraud, and abuse that has looted or drained trillions of dollars from innocent workers, their pensions and investors; a non-lip service, comprehensive nurturing of the physical and educational needs of children who require more time with their parents; reforming the criminal injustice system and strengthening our civil liberties, civil rights and civil justice remedies now being restricted; a redirected federal budget for the crucial priorities of our country, away from the massive waste, fraud and redundancy of what President Eisenhower called the "military industrial complex" and away from vast corporate subsidies; shifting the incidence of taxation to the polluting, stock speculation and addictive industries; sustainable economies with environmentally benign technologies that respect the Earth's biosphere; a multi-faceted foreign policy to wage multilateral peace, promote arms control; and using our enabling assets with the creative genius in the Third World to lift prospects for impoverished billions abroad; addressing the crisis from big agri-business domination of food production and processing that spells extinction of the small family farm economy with far-reaching consequences: for nutrition, land, water and bio-manipulation here and around the world.

Do you want to see another mandateless, dreary Presidential campaign that ignores these critical subjects, that doesn't take seriously the necessity for solar energy, affordable housing, modern public transit, repeal of laws that obstruct trade union organization by millions of workers mired in poverty by wages that cannot meet their minimum family livelihoods? Advocacy groups that have long supported these sensible policies should make demands on the Democratic Party and its candidates to ensure these necessities reflect vigorous mandates. They should not give them their support without making such demands.

What all this boils down to is the resurgence of powerful civic values which subordinate the dominance of commercial values that are taking down both our country and the standards of democratic, honest governance that Americans crave and deserve.

You can agree with all this and still say that this candidacy will take away votes from the Democratic candidate. If so, you also have to assess how many more votes the Democratic nominee will receive by (a) being pressed to appeal more forcefully for the interests of the people and (b) how many effective modes and critiques he can pick up from the independent candidate to improve the prospects of defeating Bush and (c) a more exciting campaign that brings more progressive voters out which, in a rigged, winner-take all system unfortunately would go to the Democrats in large percentages. By the way, there are astute political observers who believe that the Greens pushing Gore to more populist rhetoric allowed Gore to get many more voters.

Now what about the Senate and the House? In 2002, the Republicans won the Senate by 41,000 swing votes and the House by about 100,000 swing votes. This was not supposed to happen in an off election year. That it did happen was due in no small part, leading Progressive Democrats in Congress tell us, to their Party narrowcasting that election toward the few contested districts instead of also nationalizing the election, (as Newt Gingrich did in 1994 to a stunning success), on the daily front page issue of the corporate scandals and the corporate crooks who were very close to top Republicans, including Bush and Cheney, in the present Administration. By turning Bush into a "wartime president," with the open-ended, unconstitutional war resolution of October 2002 against the Iraqi dictator, the Democrats made it easy for the President to campaign against Democrats in state after state without rebuttal.

Do the Democrats need a spillover vote produced by an independent candidate? Some top Democrats have said they would welcome this *part* of the strategy. (Also see The Hill, January 29, 200, for what Congressional Democrats secretly hope for.) If they need their conventional “what if” reinforcement, they can ask Senator Maria Cantwell how the very large Green spillover vote in 2003 helped elect her by a narrow margin of 2,229 votes over her incumbent opponent.

So, in summary, our approach can help defeat Bush, strengthen the progressive forces inside the Democratic Party by successfully amplifying ways to end this regime, while simultaneously furthering the *longer range expansion* of the forces of peace, justice and democracy in future elections and nourishing a more vigorous civic movement as well.

After thinking about this, you may still judge that the infinitesimal risk that is worrying you is too important to take compared to the higher risks that the Democrats on their present path will not only lose the election to Bush, but maybe lose near the scale of a Dukakis or Mondale defeat and destroy their chances of recovering even one house of Congress, with accompanying losses on the state and local ballot lines.

We believe that two fronts are better than one if conducted collaboratively on those objectives held in common, without compromising either candidacy. To wallow in the squabble of "spoiler" is to plunge into second-class citizenship scapegoating which will get the Democrats nowhere. Think strategically out of the box and you will have three arenas to block Bush -- evict him from the White House or, helped by a spillover, recover one or both of the Houses of Congress not to mention affecting state and local races. Generally speaking, with a few luminous exceptions, the Democrats have been on a losing team for ten years -- the House, the Senate, the state legislatures and the state Governorships. Their language is stale when it is candid, and servile when it is bought and paid for. The alternative in a rigged political system to defeat Bush is to respect small candidacies that can demonstrate high standards and big ways to defeat Bush as well as produce a spillover vote to recover at least one House of the Congress.

From our viewpoint, a renewed respect will be accorded the civil liberties of third parties and Independent candidates to exercise their right to reform the political system and not be told to remain silent and not speak by not running. It is a sad day when the electoral Republican thieves cause the Democratic blunderers in the Florida 2000 election to lead some prominent or active liberals to take it out on future candidates who might help jolt their beloved but stagnant Party into the minds of more voters.

At the very least, kindly consider withholding judgment and wait and see.

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader


votenader.org

[sangha]

90. Not really

I'm more interested in what he does.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[balanced]

95. Agreed

"Enter an independent candidacy in a duopolized system that does not believe the election has to be totally enclosed by zero-sum gaming among the major candidates."

I would love a parliamentary system where third and fourth and fifth party candidates have power. But in our system, it is zero-sum. Even Ross Perot, who was infinitely more popular than Nader, could not make a dent.

[Ardee]

96. criticise Nader and you criticize our democracy

What the neocons do not want you to understand is that Nader exercised his right under a free and democratic institution to run for office. That by doing so he cost Gore the Presidency is simple an absurd concept, one that could only evolve from the disturbed minds of extreme conservatives who are just as eccentric as democrats as they are as republicans.

Noone owns my vote, noone owns your vote, that is why we have elections in the first place. Gore had his pulpit and the way he chose to use it lies solely on his shoulders. Every vote cast for Nader represents a failure of Bush and a failure of Gore to convince that voter of the validity of his position.

I am very glad to see Nader in this race, just as I am to see Dennis Kucinich continue to run , as their respective presences will push Kerry further left and further from his Bush like politics.

[balanced]

98. You go on and on and on, but

the only thing I am saying is that IF NADER HAD DROPPED OUT OF FLORIDA, GORE WOULD NOW BE PRESIDENT.

I have said, again and again, that Nader has the right to run. Nader has the right ideas, for the most part.

[Ardee]

107. I dont care

Get this straight, I will not follow you over that cliff, you will leap to the death of the democratic process all by yourself....is that simple enough for you?

If, if ,if.... Im sick unto death of people like you who will not look within yourselves or your party for reasons why Gore failed. You and your ilk are dooming not only the democrats but the nation to increasing right wing dominance and all the baggage that goes with it.

Nader had a right to run, as he has now,so do you if you wish . Gore failed because he was a crappy campaigner following a doomed strategy, had he even carried his own state he'd be president now.....Blame Gore, blame Donna Brazile, blame the neocons who stole your party. If you got a D on a test in school did you blame the teacher or a classmate or the fates? If you possess a modicum of intelligence you accept the blame for your own failures and seek to do better next time out.

However this is not what we see from the democrats, at least those here in neocon heaven. Your party has displayed miserable cowardice in failing to excoriate Bush at every turn, and now they are being hoisted on their own petard, attempting to make credible criticisms of policies and actions they fully supported....good luck with that.

Scapegoat all you wish it still will not win a single vote.

[balanced]

104. The center is where it is at, unfortunately.

"I am very glad to see Nader in this race, just as I am to see Dennis Kucinich continue to run , as their respective presences will push Kerry further left and further from his Bush like politics."

This is wrong. Kerry must go to the center to even have a chance of winning. The "Liberal" moniker pushed on democrats by Limbaugh, etc. will not take on a new meaning or dissolve because you want it to.

Nader will only have the effect of presenting Bush and the republicans with power for four more years. We must adjourn the kind of "pie in the sky" thinking of Nader and others who would deliver the election to Bush on a platter.

[Ardee]

106. something is indeed wrong

besides your assessment of american political strategy that is.....During the campaigning for the mid term elections democrats followed exactly the strategy you propose and lost miserably.

The further Kerry moves toward Bush, the more similar his platform and speeches mirror those of the GOP the less distinct a choice is givemn to the electorate. Your strategy is a recipe for failure....good luck with it, perhaps while camapigning against Jeb in '08 you might awaken to reality.

[northpark]

111. nader does not equate to "democracy"

"criticise Nader and you criticize our democracy"?

no, to criticize "democracy" criticizes "democracy".

open criticism of Nader is the application of our democracy.

this can be seen in places like http://www.cafeshops.com/fireralphnader

[Ardee]

113. Sorry , Ill use simpler language

....The criticism to which I was referring, and you really should read the entire thread to grasp the stream of thought you know,was to state that those who criticise Nader's RIGHT to run for office, those who seek to force Nader to shoulder the blame for the abysmal campaign of Al Gore and the simpering democratic leadership too cowardly or otherwise motivated to remain true to democratic principles are way off base....clear enough?

Oh and also the fact that all this Nader bashing is simply a tool of the neocon democrats that keeps you from looking inward at your party to find the real blame.

[Bill Todd]

115. Funny how some people talk about 'theft'

As if they felt that they, or the party, somehow owned our votes and/or the position on the ballot that Nader chose to occupy.

I don't think that you'll be able to find language simple enough for such people to understand. Assuming that they have any interest in understanding at all.

- bill

[Ardee]

116. We do not live in isolation

There are several types of folks who post and lurk here. There are, as you are very aware by now, a small but "vocal" coterie of neoconservative apologists for the swing to the right of the Democratic Party. I sometimes wonder why (or even if) they are democrats.

There are also those who are devoted democrats who cling to the illusary history of their party and refuse to do the research that proves the illusion. The Democrats were once a proud group who championed workers, children, civil rights and stood up for the minority and disenfranchised peoples interestst, sadly this is no longer the case. These folks are led by their noses by the first group simply because they want so badly to believe that electing democrats is the solution.

Then there are those who can be reached, who lurk and seldom post whether out of shyness or out of a fear of combative responses by those neocons.These are the people upon whom any progress depends.

[balanced]

97. The data are presented, but

there is no remorse at all--no apology.

"In 2000, exit polls showed that 21% or 25% of my vote would have gone to Bush, 38% or 41% to Gore, and the rest would not have voted."

Current polls show the same thing: about a 2 (democratic) to 1 (republican) split voting for Nader. This thing is so consistent that we can expect that in 2004 Nader will take 2 democratic votes for every 1 republican vote.

[Kanary]

99. So, if you want those votes

You can work like hell to push the party, and KERRY, to LISTEN to the Dems who are being ignored.

It's as simple as that.

Kanary

[balanced]

100. This is silly.

"You can work like hell to push the party, and KERRY, to LISTEN to the Dems who are being ignored."

What do you mean by "being ignored." The Dems are on the right side of almost every issue Nader addresses. How close does Kerry have to come to Nader's postitions before the Naderites can say they are not being ignored?

[Kanary]

102. Thanks for dismissing yet one more Dem as "silly"

You have proved my point.

Thanks.

Kanary

[sangh0]

109. Not a Dem

You do nothing but criticize Dems. With friends like you, Dems need no enemies.

[balanced]

105. Nice way of evading the question.

How close does Kerry have to come to Nader's positions before the Naderites can say they are not being ignored?

[sangh0]

110. They don't do questions

They won't answer the original question about how Nader contributed to the theft of the election, and they won't ever answer your newest question either.

[balanced]

101. This guy is worse than I thought.

"Not if you know that conservative and libertarian Republicans have not been happy with the corporate Republicans who dominate the party and concede to their right wing the verbal platforms to keep them in line. Now, many conservative or libertarian Republicans are furious with Bush over the massive deficits, taxpayer-funded, corporate subsidies, the Patriot Act's invasion of privacy and undermining of civil liberties, the impaired sovereignty issues in NAFTA and GATT, uncontrolled corporate pornography beamed to their children in violent commercial entertainment -- to name some points of serious disappointments."

Ralphie boy. You are only getting 2 to 3% of the votes in polls adn 2 to 3% is definitely not "many". Third party (or fourth, or fifth) candidates are not really taking off. This doesn't sound like a lot of fury to me. What a crock. Where are you getting your data? Just how furious is this fury?

[northpark]

112. yes, yes, yes

nader's 2004 candidacy defies logic as both a means and an end.

he needs to be stopped well before november. i wish everyone he thinks will vote for him again wore one of these in his presence:
http://www.cafeshops.com/fireralphnader.10732834

that would be a reality check.

[Ardee]

117. glazed eyed robots make poor analysts

You paste an accurate picture of the disatisfaction of many republicans with Bush and it fails to register because it comes from Nader. Put the same words in Kerry's mouth and you'd be falling all over yourself praising his acumen and insight...BAH!

That Nader got only 2.74% of the vote means nothing, that he speaks the truth, a truth that is absent from the mouths of most democrats means everything. Keep it up and you will see third party candidates getting increasing shares of the vote, every election will bring more and more disaffected voters into the fold of these new parties.......

[balanced]

103. Does Nader really reside in the real world?

Here are Nader's goals:

"You want to be reminded of them? Here's a short list -- full public financing of public elections -- merits not money should rule here; universal health insurance -- 55 years after President Truman proposed this to Congress (overdue?); a serious drive to abolish poverty (Nixon proposed one preliminary way to Congress); a living wage for tens of millions of workers making under $10 an hour (adjust to inflation and even the 1968 federal minimum wage could be $8 an hour today, not $5.15); strong enforcement against corporate crime, fraud, and abuse that has looted or drained trillions of dollars from innocent workers, their pensions and investors; a non-lip service, comprehensive nurturing of the physical and educational needs of children who require more time with their parents; reforming the criminal injustice system and strengthening our civil liberties, civil rights and civil justice remedies now being restricted; a redirected federal budget for the crucial priorities of our country, away from the massive waste, fraud and redundancy of what President Eisenhower called the "military industrial complex" and away from vast corporate subsidies; shifting the incidence of taxation to the polluting, stock speculation and addictive industries; sustainable economies with environmentally benign technologies that respect the Earth's biosphere; a multi-faceted foreign policy to wage multilateral peace, promote arms control; and using our enabling assets with the creative genius in the Third World to lift prospects for impoverished billions abroad; addressing the crisis from big agri-business domination of food production and processing that spells extinction of the small family farm economy with far-reaching consequences: for nutrition, land, water and bio-manipulation here and around the world."

On all of the issues above, democrats are much closer to Nader's "ideal" than republicans. In the real world, Nader, of course, does not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the presidency. This is why he sets as a political goal:

"If you wish to defeat George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in November, restore the House and/or the Senate to the Democrats and continue to build a longer term progressive political movement"

Translation: I couldn't win the presidency in a million. You can't count on me to get my reforms through. So let's have a "pie in the sky" episode: Dems retake Congress. To hell with the presidential race.

Before reading the above declaration, I didn't think that the charges of ego-mania leveled at Nader were valid enough to even contemplate. Now I'm not so sure.