Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:34 PM

Gore not becoming President: whose fault?

Who do *you* think is most responsible for Gore not becoming President on 1/20/2001?

71 votes, 0 passes \| Time left: Time expired
	Ralph Nader
	4 (6%)
	George W. Bush
	1 (1%)
	Al Gore
	9 (13%)
	The Supreme Court
	51 (72%)
	Jeb Bush and his Florida cronies
	1 (1%)
	Not sure, but Nader wasn't the primary problem
	2 (3%)
	Other
	3 (4%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

139 replies, 7093 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

139 replies	Author	Time	Post
Gore not becoming President: whose fault? (Original post)	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	OP
It was actually more than one thing	Boudica the Lyoness	Jun 2014	#1
The Supreme Court	mainstreetonce	Jun 2014	#4
Yes, if Al Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, Florida wouldn't have mattered.	Electric Monk	Jun 2014	#19
Tennessee was a little Florida when it came to vote fraud	Samantha	Jun 2014	#30
I don't believe voter fraud was to blame for Gore losing TN	Reter	Jun 2014	#39
Well, we will just have to disagree over this	Samantha	Jul 2014	#72
Why would he win that state?	treestar	Jul 2014	#97
Maybe because they elected him Senator earlier?	HooptieWagon	Jul 2014	#130
If nader didn't run Gore could have spent more time in TN instead of NM, WI, IA, and OR.	hrmjustin	Jul 2014	#102
Yes many factors, along with distorted media.	gordianot	Jun 2014	#14
Actually, the NRA via: W.VA and TN. nt	kelliekat44	Jul 2014	#86
Yes, perfect storm	treestar	Jul 2014	#93
The American Electorate.	Gravitycollapse	Jun 2014	#2
The American electorate voted for Gore	Art_from_Ark	Jun 2014	#17
No, they did not. Between 40 and 45% of the electorate didn't vote at all.	Gravitycollapse	Jun 2014	#38
Yes they did	Art_from_Ark	Jun 2014	#47
So the only people concerned enough to vote voted for Gore?	Gravitycollapse	Jun 2014	#58
By your criteria, no president has ever won an election	Art_from_Ark	Jun 2014	#62
I suggested no such thing. I did say the electorate did not vote for Gore...	Gravitycollapse	Jul 2014	#65
Put it this way-- the Americans who cast their votes in November 2000 preferred Gore	Art_from_Ark	Jul 2014	#66
WINNER!	Cosmocat	Jul 2014	#89
It was the butterfly ballot	BainsBane	Jun 2014	#3
Many things were to blame and fuck those who try to defend any of them	JI7	Jun 2014	#5
Multiple, but Nader was a key. Without Nader, Gore wins.	onehandle	Jun 2014	#6
Gore did win.	ForgoTheConsequence	Jun 2014	#11
BINGO!!! SCOTUS...to blame for stopping the recount. nt	kelliekat44	Jul 2014	#88
Assuming Nader voters were Democrats	AgingAmerican	Jun 2014	#24
One half of one percent of them could have prevented Bush.	onehandle	Jun 2014	#25
Nader got 1% of Republican vote	AgingAmerican	Jun 2014	#29
LOL!	onehandle	Jun 2014	#37
1% is almost ZERO appeal	AgingAmerican	Jun 2014	#40
Oh, AgingAmerican!	Maedhros	Jul 2014	#105
Your reliance on party registration is ludicrous.	Jim Lane	Jul 2014	#112
13% of Democrats voted for Bush in Florida in 2000	AgingAmerican	Jul 2014	#118
So bleeping what?	Jim Lane	Jul 2014	#119
Do the math	AgingAmerican	Jul 2014	#120
True. Far more than voted for Nader.	HooptieWagon	Jul 2014	#133
Heh.	Erich Bloodaxe BSN	Jul 2014	#127
No, he folded because he didn't want to see an open revolution in the Country	Samantha	Jun 2014	#42
Yeah, right	AgingAmerican	Jun 2014	#44
Open revolution, my ass. There was never any real chance of that.	winter is coming	Jun 2014	#57
There was no single culprit.	Agnosticsherbet	Jun 2014	#7
You might want to edit your post. There's a part in the middle where you appear to be	winter is coming	Jun 2014	#8
Translating...... "rim c;ao,omg tjat tjere os mpt dofferemce betweem"	Electric Monk	Jun 2014	#12
Thanks; that makes more sense. It was kind of like autocorrect on acid there for a while. n/t	winter is coming	Jun 2014	#16
yes sorry for the confusion. I'm posting from my hospital bed and my fingers no work so good.	Agnosticsherbet	Jun 2014	#20
Oh! Sorry; I didn't realize you were in the hospital.	winter is coming	Jun 2014	#23
Tomorrow or the day after, depending on the pain. Thanks.	Agnosticsherbet	Jun 2014	#41
I chose other because you didn't have the "corporate media" as a choice.	Uncle Joe	Jun 2014	#9
Yeah, the corporate media certainly stunk to high heaven	Art_from_Ark	Jun 2014	#27
"Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet" Which I believe truly explains their vitriol toward	Uncle Joe	Jun 2014	#34
Al did NOT claim to invent the internet.	Punkingal	Jul 2014	#90
You should read the post you just replied to.	winter is coming	Jul 2014	#91
Precisely, that's the point of my post. n/t	Uncle Joe	Jul 2014	#94
+1000	LondonReign2	Jul 2014	#101
Thanks, LondonReign, I view the corporate media as the	Uncle Joe	Jul 2014	#103
Not Nader's fault.	Spider Jerusalem	Jun 2014	#10
You're right.	ForgoTheConsequence	Jun 2014	#18
I think a reasonable case could be made Gore would have won NM, WI, IA, and OR by bigger margins	hrmjustin	Jul 2014	#108
FAR more Dems voted for Bush than Nader.	HooptieWagon	Jul 2014	#134
And republicans voted for Gore. This is normal and happens every election.	hrmjustin	Jul 2014	#135
I voted Supreme Court but let us not forget that freak of nature,	Marie Marie	Jun 2014	#13
She was the bu$h campaign's co-chair in Florida	Art_from_Ark	Jun 2014	#28
It was a number of things. . .	Stargleamer	Jun 2014	#14
+1. n/t	winter is coming	Jun 2014	#21
Al Gore. Shitty campaign n/t	leftstreet	Jun 2014	#22
Al Gore, decided to play lap dog	BlueStreak	Jun 2014	#54
I'm amazed that nobody's clicked "Gore" yet. He wasn't a good campaigner.	LeftyMom	Jun 2014	#26
He ran away from a "popular incumbent"	Art_from_Ark	Jun 2014	#55
That was stupid at the time and still seems stupid in retrospect.	LeftyMom	Jun 2014	#56
Gore won the popular vote	Art_from_Ark	Jun 2014	#59
The economy was flying. It shouldn't have been close enough to steal, lose or fuck up in any way.	LeftyMom	Jun 2014	#63
Reagan was a moron, too	Art_from_Ark	Jul 2014	#64
Bush being a fucking idiot was seen as a positive at that time	JI7	Jul 2014	#69
Voters?	moondust	Jun 2014	#31
I didn't mean to vote three times for the Supreme Court	Rosa Luxemburg	Jun 2014	#32
The voters	Mz Pip	Jun 2014	#33
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone,	Maedhros	Jul 2014	#107
1, 2 & 3	G_j	Jun 2014	#35
Supreme Court because they are supposed to uphold the law. Brother Jeb second	McCamy Taylor	Jun 2014	#36
4 and 5. nt	LWolf	Jun 2014	#43
USSC, BushCo. cronies, conservative Democrats, Gore, yellow, mealy mouth Democrats in that order.	TheKentuckian	Jun 2014	#45
If you blame Nader, you legitmize Bush.	morningfog	Jun 2014	#46
Would you extend that principle?	Jim Lane	Jul 2014	#113
All of those things are irrelevant when the critical point is aknowledged: Gore won.	morningfog	Jul 2014	#116
I try to pre-empt the "but Gore won!" response	Jim Lane	Jul 2014	#117
I don't think I can say but-for Nader, Gore would have won.	morningfog	Jul 2014	#121
the American sheeple	reddread	Jun 2014	#48
Gore may not have became president but he did win	damnedifIknow	Jun 2014	#49
Fuck Ralph Nader	whatchamacallit	Jun 2014	#50
Katharine Harris and Jeb Bush paying Diebold $4 million to cleanse the voter rolls of minorties	Tony_FLADEM	Jun 2014	#51
If Democrats keep focusing on the past	Jenoch	Jun 2014	#52
Jeb Bush, who refused a state wide recount	Warpy	Jun 2014	#53
In the end, it was Gore's fault	BillZBubb	Jun 2014	#60
It's the politicians job to convince voters to vote for him/her.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Jun 2014	#61
After re-watching George Carlin: Jammin' in New York, I wonder if he voted Nader in 2000?	Electric Monk	Jul 2014	#67
While other people had an effect, Nader was the single progressive with the greatest	pnwmom	Jul 2014	#68
i blame bill bradley. the gnewz media, AND nader.	pansypoo53219	Jul 2014	#70
It was Bush.	mattclearing	Jul 2014	#71
Am I the only person on this forum who remembers the PMRC?	beerandjesus	Jul 2014	#73
Where's Choicepoint?	lame54	Jul 2014	#74
SCOTUS and all the Republican voters who stacked that court.	Bluenorthwest	Jul 2014	#75
how about the damn media? ragging on gore's sighs and sweaters and supposed "lies"?	unblock	Jul 2014	#76
That's a good point	MannyGoldstein	Jul 2014	#77
oh, they were so tough on shrub. the teetotaler you'd love to have a beer with!	unblock	Jul 2014	#80
Thank you!	Punkingal	Jul 2014	#92
the media was complicit	noiretextatique	Jul 2014	#124
Seeing how Gore really won Florida, the Supreme Court is the only logical answer!	B Calm	Jul 2014	#78
I blame the Democratic reviewers who approved the wonky design of the Palm Beach ballot	LonePirate	Jul 2014	#79
but even with all the dirty shenanigans that went on in Florida, Gore still had more votes.	B Calm	Jul 2014	#82
The SC would never had intervened as there would have been no month long recount	LonePirate	Jul 2014	#83
There are a lot of different angles and reasons to blame, but	B Calm	Jul 2014	#85
Supreme Court. It was not Nader...	truth2power	Jul 2014	#81
You should have also included the spinless Dems in Congress as an option...nt	joeybee12	Jul 2014	#84
Florida cronies	Aerows	Jul 2014	#87
Diebold Indicted: Its spectre still haunts Ohio elections	mia	Jul 2014	#95
climate change ?	NM_Birder	Jul 2014	#96
Jeb and Harris--but the people blaming Nader KNOW that, as much as Rummy and Cheneybeast	MisterP	Jul 2014	#98
Nader , theft, and the Gore campaign.	hrmjustin	Jul 2014	#99
It was your fault, Manny.	MineralMan	Jul 2014	#100
When did the OP ever do that?	KamaAina	Jul 2014	#104
It's obvious to anyone who really pays attention	MannyGoldstein	Jul 2014	#109
The Mineral Manny sig is creepy	HangOnKids	Jul 2014	#111
Is this my fault, too?	MannyGoldstein	Jul 2014	#110
Sandra Day O'Connor in particular	El Supremo	Jul 2014	#106
chad, nader, then Peggy Noonan and Tweety	bigtree	Jul 2014	#114
I refused to select because trying to name one is comparing apples and oranges.	Jim Lane	Jul 2014	#115
Just so no one gets confused...	Oakenshield	Jul 2014	#122
SCOTUS deserves ALL the blame	noiretextatique	Jul 2014	#123
You need a Jeb AND Supreme Court option	yurbud	Jul 2014	#125
It was my fault...	kentuck	Jul 2014	#126
three words tip it Jeb: FELON VOTER PURGE of 82,389 mostly black voters	yurbud	Jul 2014	#128
I will never forgive Nader	RandySF	Jul 2014	#129
Plenty of blame to go around.	lumberjack_jeff	Jul 2014	#131
Many reasons, but ultimately Al Gore.	HooptieWagon	Jul 2014	#132
Wow, more blame for Gore than Nader.	joshcryer	Jul 2014	#136
Why is this a surprise? I expected this outcome....	socialist_n_TN	Jul 2014	#137
DU was created due to Gore being sabotaged!	joshcryer	Jul 2014	#138
Who's placing most of the blame on Gore? Not this poll......	socialist_n_TN	Jul 2014	#139

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:37 PM

Boudica the Lyoness (2,899 posts)

1. It was actually more than one thing

Supreme court
Bush
Nadar
Fixed ballot boxes

Reply to this post

Response to Boudica the Lyoness (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:42 PM

mainstreetonce (4,178 posts)

4. The Supreme Court

Florida's mess.

Court never should touched it.

Florida would have given it to Bush anyway.

Gore lost Tennessee. Blame the NRA.

Reply to this post

Response to mainstreetonce (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:52 PM

Electric Monk (13,869 posts)

19. Yes, if Al Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, Florida wouldn't have mattered.

[font size=+1][center]For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.[/center][/font]

Reply to this post

Response to Electric Monk (Reply #19)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:05 PM

Samantha (9,314 posts)

30. Tennessee was a little Florida when it came to vote fraud

Karl Rove had planned to make sure Gore lost Tennessee as an acute national embarrassment. That vote was pretty close, as I remember, but there were many complaints from voters on election day who experienced the same type of problems as voters in Florida. Three of the complaints were eventually picked up and pursued by Uncle Sam (DOJ) along with about 18 cases from Florida.

The one case I distinctly remember was an African-American minister who reached the front of the line and was told he did not have the proper id. He had voted for years with no problem. He angrily responded that if he was not allowed to vote, he was not moving from the line and would be calling a lawyer on the spot. They allowed him to complete a provisional ballot.

But many African-Americans complained about having to stand in line way too long, having too few voting machines, voting places moved at the last moment without public announcement - you know the drill.

We will never know who truly won Tennessee had all of the votes genuinely been allowed to be cast, just as some people say we will never know who truly won Florida. I take exception to that second part of the sentence - I think there is no question Gore won Florida, and there is additionally no question the final word on the subject rested with the highest court in Florida, not the Supreme Court.

Sam

Reply to this post

Response to Samantha (Reply #30)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:11 PM

Reter (2,188 posts)

39. I don't believe voter fraud was to blame for Gore losing TN

I also don't think Rove had the power to just steal states like it was nothing. Florida was unique. I believe Rove and Bush thought they had it in the bag, but once the election was over, they did everything in their power to stop recounting.

Reply to this post

Response to Reter (Reply #39)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 09:27 AM

Samantha (9,314 posts)

72. Well, we will just have to disagree over this

It is quite possible that it did. I am from Tennessee and I followed the election there closely, as well as the followup examination of voter complaints. As I said before, many of the techniques used in Florida were replicated in Tennessee. And the DOJ thought 3 of them were serious enough to investigate. It was indeed a mini-Florida.

Sam

Reply to this post

Response to Electric Monk (Reply #19)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:49 PM

treestar (80,844 posts)

97. Why would he win that state?

It is red as red can be.

State pride is a thing of the past. I seriously don't see expecting candidates to carry a state just because they are from there.

The benefit to that is small states can have candidates for President or VP. They wouldn't have picked Biden or Palin if winning the home state was a big deal. They'd always pick someone from a high vote state.

Reply to this post

Response to treestar (Reply #97)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 04:05 PM

HooptieWagon (17,064 posts)

130. Maybe because they elected him Senator earlier?

It seems to me he should have been able to repeat a state-wide election win in his home state, had he run a better campaign.

Reply to this post

Response to mainstreetonce (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:48 PM

hrmjustin (71,265 posts)

102. If nader didn't run Gore could have spent more time in TN instead of NM, WI, IA, and OR.

Reply to this post

Response to Boudica the Lyoness (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:50 PM

gordianot (14,969 posts)

14. Yes many factors, along with distorted media.

The Neocon hiding in plain sight was probably also a factor.

Reply to this post

Response to gordianot (Reply #14)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:45 AM

kelliekat44 (7,759 posts)

86. Actually, the NRA via: W.VA and TN. nt

Reply to this post

Response to Boudica the Lyoness (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:00 AM

treestar (80,844 posts)

93. Yes, perfect storm

of factors going together.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:39 PM

Gravitycollapse (8,155 posts)

2. The American Electorate.

Reply to this post

Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:52 PM

Art_from_Ark (27,247 posts)

17. The American electorate voted for Gore

Gore: 50,999,897
bu$h: 50,456,002

Reply to this post

Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:10 PM

Gravitycollapse (8,155 posts)

38. No, they did not. Between 40 and 45% of the electorate didn't vote at all.

As an homogenous chunk, those who didn't vote vastly outnumbered any candidate.

It's not even comparable. The number of persons who didn't vote outnumbered the number of those who voted for Nader by as high as 31 to 1.

Reply to this post

Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #38)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:06 PM

Art_from_Ark (27,247 posts)

47. Yes they did

The popular vote total was in Gore's favor. What matters in all US elections, except presidential, is who wins the popular vote, not how many qualified voters voted. The people who were concerned enough to vote, wanted Gore.

Reply to this post

Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #47)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:45 PM

Gravitycollapse (8,155 posts)

58. So the only people concerned enough to vote voted for Gore?

All other voters were unconcerned? That's an amazingly ignorant dismissal of political opposition.

Reply to this post

Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #58)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:49 PM

Art_from_Ark (27,247 posts)

62. By your criteria, no president has ever won an election

because no candidate has ever received a majority of the *potential* vote

Reply to this post

Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #62)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:02 AM

Gravitycollapse (8,155 posts)

65. I suggested no such thing. I did say the electorate did not vote for Gore...

Which is a statement of fact. A large majority of the electorate did not vote for Gore even though he did win the popular vote.

You will realize that fundamentally the argument that Nader was responsible for Gore's loss is the same as the argument that the non-voters were responsible for Gore's loss. If you accept the logic of the former you must necessarily accept the logic of the latter. Which is to say that those who did not vote for Gore are responsible for his loss. Of course, I think this is probably a reasonably sound claim.

Which is why I think that if we were to stratify those who did not vote for Gore as an explanation for their inaction, the strata with the largest size would shoulder the most blame.

In order, from most to least responsible, those would be non-voters, those who voted for Bush and, in a hugely distant third, those who voted for Nader.

Reply to this post

Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #65)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:25 AM

Art_from_Ark (27,247 posts)

66. Put it this way-- the Americans who cast their votes in November 2000 preferred Gore

Thousands more voters were capriciously knocked off the voter rolls in Florida (and other states) before the election.
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-great-florida-ex-con-gamernhow-the-felon-voter-purge-was-itself-felonious/

Thousands more were denied the right to vote on that day merely because the polls closed or because they were purposely detained, before they had a chance to vote.

http://www.michaelparenti.org/stolenelections.html

And still others like me, who voted absentee from overseas, maybe didn't even get to have their votes counted. For example, the last ballot I mailed, which was sent by registered mail, somehow didn't make it to the county clerk's office after it arrived in the US.

Reply to this post

Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:47 AM

Cosmocat (14,273 posts)

89. WINNER!

Every dumb ass who voted for Jr. and every dumb ass who didn't bother to vote.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:41 PM

BainsBane (52,397 posts)

3. It was the butterfly ballot

If the Palm Beach County ballot had been normal, thousands of votes from retirees would have gone to Gore, as they were intended, rather than Buchanan. Then we would have never had that nutty recount or a case in the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:42 PM

JI7 (87,636 posts)

5. Many things were to blame and fuck those who try to defend any of them

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:42 PM

onehandle (51,122 posts)

6. Multiple, but Nader was a key. Without Nader, Gore wins.

He was one of four participants in a perfect storm. Period.

Reply to this post

Response to onehandle (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:49 PM

ForgoTheConsequence (4,749 posts)

11. Gore did win.

He could have won more I guess.... But that's pretty low standard.

Reply to this post

Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #11)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:46 AM

kelliekat44 (7,759 posts)

88. BINGO!!! SCOTUS...to blame for stopping the recount. nt

Reply to this post

Response to onehandle (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:57 PM

AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)

24. Assuming Nader voters were Democrats

...which they were not. By a huge margin, the people who voted for Nader were not ex-Democrats, but ex-Reform Party voters who supported Ross Perot. These people vote third party or stay at home, won’t vote for a D or R regardless, and are conservatives not liberals.

Reply to this post

Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #24)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:00 PM

onehandle (51,122 posts)

25. One half of one percent of them could have prevented Bush.

Nader campaigned for Weeks in Florida.

Nader and Bush are Exactly the Same.

Reply to this post

Response to onehandle (Reply #25)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:05 PM

AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)

29. Nader got 1% of Republican vote

...and 1% of the Democratic vote. Thus he had zero effect on the outcome. Had Al Gore fought and had a full recount, he would have won. Instead he folded because Republicans were saying stupid, mean stuff about him. Of course that's all they ever do, but for some reason Gore folded like a two year old attempting origami.

Reply to this post

Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #29)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:08 PM

onehandle (51,122 posts)

37. LOL!

Yeah. Nader had Equal appeal to Democrats and Republicans.

Hilarious.

Reply to this post

Response to onehandle (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:17 PM

AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)

40. 1% is almost ZERO appeal

1% barely counts as fringe. Exit polls don't lie, though they do blow your narrative to smithereens.

13 percent of registered Democrats voted for Bush in Florida in that election, BTW.

Reply to this post

Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #40)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:53 PM

Maedhros (10,007 posts)

105. Oh, AgingAmerican!

Facts can be used to prove anything that's even remotely true!

Reply to this post

Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #40)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:03 PM

Jim Lane (11,175 posts)

112. Your reliance on party registration is ludicrous.

The obvious question is: "If Nader had not been on the ballot, what would the people who actually voted for him have done instead?"

The three relevant categories of answers are: (1) voted for Bush; (2) voted for Gore; or (3) deprived of the opportunity to vote for Nader, found some other way to make themselves politically irrelevant.

We can ignore the last group. The issue is the comparative size of the first two groups. Every bit of data I've ever seen, including some from Nader himself IIRC, states that Group 2 would greatly outnumber Group 1. The difference between the two numbers would have represented Gore's net gain. It would have swamped the official margin for Bush in Florida. Gore would have had a cheatproof margin of victory and would have become President.

If you think that Group 1 and Group 2 are equal in size, you'll have to present some pretty powerful data to make that sense -- much more powerful than party registration.

Reply to this post

Response to Jim Lane (Reply #112)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:00 AM

AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)

118. 13% of Democrats voted for Bush in Florida in 2000

Reply to this post

Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #118)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:12 AM

Jim Lane (11,175 posts)

119. So bleeping what?

I'm sure everyone here agrees that anyone who voted for Bush in Florida in 2000 (or in any state in any general election) made a mistake. I'm also sure that everyone here agrees that their mistake in no way excuses Katherine Harris's illegal purge of pro-Democratic voters.

You wrote in #29 that Nader "had zero effect on the outcome." Do you honestly believe that, if Nader had exercised his constitutional right to not run in the general election, the Gore-versus-Bush tally would have been unaffected? It depends on your assessment of the people who in the real world voted for Nader. Is it your position that, in a hypothetical scenario in which he's not on the ballot, the number of those people who would have voted for Gore would be roughly equal to the number who would have voted for Bush? If so, do I understand correctly that your sole basis for that position is party registration?

Reply to this post

Response to Jim Lane (Reply #119)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 01:37 AM

AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)

120. Do the math

Reply to this post

Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #118)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 04:12 PM

HooptieWagon (17,064 posts)

133. True. Far more than voted for Nader.

Anyone pointing fingers at voters has to conclude conservative democrats voting Bush were to blame, not liberals.

Reply to this post

Response to Jim Lane (Reply #112)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 02:59 PM

Erich Bloodaxe BSN (14,733 posts)

127. Heh.

Given that we never saw President Gore, by your logic, anyone who didn't vote for Bush, including Gore voters, 'found a way to make themselves politically irrelevant'. Just like those who voted for Dewey, Kerry, or anyone else who failed to become President.

Reply to this post

Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #29)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:19 PM

Samantha (9,314 posts)

42. No, he folded because he didn't want to see an open revolution in the Country

He thought that was the best thing to do for the Country, and additionally the Democrats failed to back him up except for a couple who weakly spoke out while the recount was being conducted (and the Congressional Black Caucus who protested on the date the Electoral College met to count the votes).

While we did not have an open revolution, what we did get was this: a man who sat in the Oval Office for 8 years and destroyed our economy, our Country's reputation, a terrorist attack on our Country 9/11 that Bush* failed to thwart, a huge deficit which accumulated and was hidden from the public eye since the figures were kept off the general ledger (Enron-type accounting), and the lives of thousands of innocent civilians who had misfortune to live in Iraq. The damages done by Bush*, including appointing Roberts to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, will continue to have rippling deleterious impact on this Country for decades to come. And many of those damages can NEVER be made whole again.

Sam

Reply to this post

Response to Samantha (Reply #42)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:20 PM

AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)

44. Yeah, right

Republicans jumping up and down crying = revolution. If that were the case there would have been a revolution during the 90s when they were up in arms saying stupid stuff the whole decade.

Reply to this post

Response to Samantha (Reply #42)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:44 PM

winter is coming (11,785 posts)

57. Open revolution, my ass. There was never any real chance of that.

I saw more of that clusterfuck unfolding on TV than I care to remember. The pundits were flapping their arms about a "Constitutional crisis" while ordinary people were going about their business and assuming it would all get straightened out sooner or later.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:44 PM

Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)

7. There was no single culprit.

SCOTUS, Republicans rioting to stop the recount, A Florida ballot deisgend to confuse, Nader'd claim that there is no difference between the parties, and so many more. electoral college, etc., etc,.

Reply to this post

Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:46 PM

winter is coming (11,785 posts)

8. You might want to edit your post. There's a part in the middle where you appear to be

speaking in tongues.

Reply to this post

Response to winter is coming (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:50 PM

Electric Monk (13,869 posts)

12. Translating...... "rim c;ao,omg tjat tjere os mpt dofferemce betweem"

translation: "him saying that there's no difference between"

?

Reply to this post

Response to Electric Monk (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:51 PM

winter is coming (11,785 posts)

16. Thanks; that makes more sense. It was kind of like autocorrect on acid there for a while. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to Electric Monk (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:53 PM

Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)

20. yes sorry for the confusion. I'm posting from my hospital bed and my fingers no work so good.

Reply to this post

Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:56 PM

winter is coming (11,785 posts)

23. Oh! Sorry; I didn't realize you were in the hospital.

Hope things get better.

Reply to this post

Response to winter is coming (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:18 PM

Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)

41. Tomorrow or the day after, depending on the pain. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:48 PM

Uncle Joe (54,874 posts)

9. I chose other because you didn't have the "corporate media" as a choice.

Had it not been for the corporate media's one sided coverage, literally giving Bush a free pass while slandering and libeling Al Gore relentessly, the Supreme Court would never had never had the opportunity.

Gore would've won in a landslide too large for the Republicans to steal.

Thanks for the thread, MannyGoldstein.

Reply to this post

Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:01 PM

Art_from_Ark (27,247 posts)

27. Yeah, the corporate media certainly stunk to high heaven

And that includes everything from ramblings about "Clinton fatigue" to Maureen Dowd's Gore-bashing diatribes in the New York Times

Reply to this post

Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:06 PM

Uncle Joe (54,874 posts)

34. "Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet" Which I believe truly explains their vitriol toward

him.

The corporate media came to see the growing Internet as a threat against their business model, ability to use propaganda power unchecked and brainwash the masses and it threatened their commercial dollars.

That's why they relentlessly slandered and libeled Gore so much because he was the preeminent political champion for opening up the Internet to the people.

Reply to this post

Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #34)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:51 AM

Punkingal (9,522 posts)

90. Al did NOT claim to invent the internet.

That is another slanderous lie told about him and you are on a website started because of the 2000 election debacle repeating it.

Reply to this post

Response to Punkingal (Reply #90)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:57 AM

winter is coming (11,785 posts)

91. You should read the post you just replied to.

That's why they relentlessly slandered and libeled Gore so much because he was the preeminent political champion for opening up the Internet to the people.

Reply to this post

Response to Punkingal (Reply #90)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:01 AM

Uncle Joe (54,874 posts)

94. Precisely, that's the point of my post. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #34)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:35 PM

LondonReign2 (5,213 posts)

101. +1000

Corporate Whore Media kept it close enough for the Supreme Court to steal

Reply to this post

Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #101)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:49 PM

Uncle Joe (54,874 posts)

103. Thanks, LondonReign, I view the corporate media as the

preeminent cause for the coup of 2000.

Had they been honest brokers instead of acting as an institution bent on giving Bush a free pass while slandering and libeling Al Gore, none of the rest would've mattered, Gore would've won in a landslide.

CNN held a poll as to the most revolutionary invention or creation of the 20th century and the Internet won hands down, despite this, the corporate media as an institution could never bring themselves to give actually give Gore credit for his visionary legislation in opening the Information Superhighway to the people.

All they could do was ridicule him, and I have no doubt it was because they saw the growing Internet as a potential threat to their propaganda power and commercial cash cow, so they didn't want the strongest political champion of the Internet in the White House.

The Internet has been under attack by them ever since, specifically in trying to eliminate Net Neutrality while turning the net in to the equivalent of cable television.

Whatever it takes to keep the American People under their thumb.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:49 PM

Spider Jerusalem (21,786 posts)

10. Not Nader's fault.

Blaming Nader is sour grapes, and fundamentally wrong anyway as it presumes that Nader voters would have instead voted for Gore (rather than not voting at all, or voting for some other third-party candidate), which is not a reasonable supposition.

Reply to this post

Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:52 PM

ForgoTheConsequence (4,749 posts)

18. You're right.

It's not a reasonable supposition. But it's easier than growing a spine and blaming Bush and the Supreme Court.

The blaming Nader argument is hilarious.

A) Without Nader, Gore would have won.

B) Gore did win.

A) But he would have won more.....

Reply to this post

Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #10)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:06 PM

hrmjustin (71,265 posts)

108. I think a reasonable case could be made Gore would have won NM, WI, IA, and OR by bigger margins

without Nader in the race. He could have spent more time on other states. FL and NH could have gone to Gore without Nader.

Nader had a part in the loss.

Reply to this post

Response to hrmjustin (Reply #108)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 04:16 PM

HooptieWagon (17,064 posts)

134. FAR more Dems voted for Bush than Nader.

It was conservative Dems voting Bush that cost the election for Gore, not Liberals voting Nader.

Reply to this post

Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #134)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 04:22 PM

hrmjustin (71,265 posts)

135. And republicans voted for Gore. This is normal and happens every election.

People never change their registration.

Nader was a contributing factor to the loss.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:50 PM

Marie Marie (9,999 posts)

13. I voted Supreme Court but let us not forget that freak of nature,

Katherine Harris. She was as vile as Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin.

Reply to this post

Response to Marie Marie (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:04 PM

Art_from_Ark (27,247 posts)

28. She was the bu$h campaign's co-chair in Florida

and she was in charge of counting the Florida votes.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:50 PM

Stargleamer (1,819 posts)

14. It was a number of things. . .

not just one thing. I voted for the USSC, because it was more of a factor than the other reasons. Thomas and Scalia should have recused themselves, but that would require having a conscience, which they do not.

One other thing, is that we have an Electoral College System, which fundamentally goes against the fair principle of "One person, One vote".

Reply to this post

Response to Stargleamer (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:53 PM

winter is coming (11,785 posts)

21. +1. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:55 PM

leftstreet (34,851 posts)

22. Al Gore. Shitty campaign n/t

Reply to this post

Response to leftstreet (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:35 PM

BlueStreak (8,377 posts)

54. Al Gore, decided to play lap dog

or if a person wants to take a more cynical view, they could observe how much money he was able to make after lying down and rolling over for the plutocrats.

This site pegs his wealth at about $200M
http://www.businessinsider.com/al-gore-wealth-money-current-sale-al-jazeera-2013-5

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:01 PM

LeftyMom (49,212 posts)

26. I'm amazed that nobody's clicked "Gore" yet. He wasn't a good campaigner.

He ran away from a popular incumbent. He lost his own damn state. When he was pandering (PDAs with Tipper, pounding talking points into the ground) it was very obvious and awkward.

He can be personable. We're talking about a guy who managed to get people to pay good money for a movie that was essentially him giving a powerpoint presentation. But in 2000 he was very carefully saying very little, and not managing Bill Clinton's amazing skill at saying very little with great charm and charisma.

Gore was running against an Epsilon Minus Semi-Moron, it should not have been close enough to lose, spoil or steal.

Reply to this post

Response to LeftyMom (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:37 PM

Art_from_Ark (27,247 posts)

55. He ran away from a "popular incumbent"

because he was tired of being tarred with the Lewinsky mess and "Clinton fatigue".

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-fatigue-hurting-gore/

Reply to this post

Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #55)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:40 PM

LeftyMom (49,212 posts)

56. That was stupid at the time and still seems stupid in retrospect.

Gore had nothing to do with Clinton being a horndog and nobody sane connected the two. Further people were tired of the scandal, not of Clinton.

Gore should have run on the Clinton economy. Instead he ran defensively and we all know how well that worked.

Reply to this post

Response to LeftyMom (Reply #56)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:46 PM

Art_from_Ark (27,247 posts)

59. Gore won the popular vote

He "lost" a key state that was controlled by the brother of his opponent, and where the votes were being "counted" by his opponent's campaign co-chair.

Reply to this post

Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #59)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:53 PM

LeftyMom (49,212 posts)

63. The economy was flying. It shouldn't have been close enough to steal, lose or fuck up in any way.

FL wouldn't have mattered if Gore had won TN.

Need I remind you that Bush was a fucking idiot? Go watch a video of any of his speeches if you've blocked that out. He was a complete moron. It should not have been close.

Reply to this post

Response to LeftyMom (Reply #63)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:00 AM

Art_from_Ark (27,247 posts)

64. Reagan was a moron, too

Last edited Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:55 AM - Edit history (1)

Moron candidates have attracted voters for a long time, as evidenced by H.L. Mencken's musings in the 1920s, and Adlai Stevenson's famous reply in the 1950s to the comment that he had "every thinking person's vote": "Ma'am, I'll need more than that to win".

And before the 2000 election, the economy was starting to slow down as the tech stock bubble was beginning to burst.

Reply to this post

Response to LeftyMom (Reply #63)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:42 AM

JI7 (87,636 posts)

69. Bush being a fucking idiot was seen as a positive at that time

remember the crap about voting for "someone like me". and gore was seen as elitist . one lady said she was offended by gore's knowledge.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:05 PM

moondust (18,924 posts)

31. Voters?

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:06 PM

Rosa Luxemburg (28,627 posts)

32. I didn't mean to vote three times for the Supreme Court

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:06 PM

Mz Pip (26,870 posts)

33. The voters

This shouldn't have even been close. Yeah, Nader got 90,000 votes in Florida but I suspect there were 90,000 people who didn't bother to vote and not just in Florida. What was the turnout in 2000?

I don't blame Nader. I blame the people who through their vote away on a candidate who had no chance in hell of being elected. Elections have consequences. Don't throw your vote away.

Reply to this post

Response to Mz Pip (Reply #33)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:59 PM

Maedhros (10,007 posts)

107. Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone,

and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

John Quincy Adams

em.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:08 PM

G_j (40,341 posts)

35. 1, 2 & 3

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:08 PM

McCamy Taylor (19,240 posts)

36. Supreme Court because they are supposed to uphold the law. Brother Jeb second

along with SOS What's her name for disenfranchising Blacks. Nader third for being math challenged ("Hey, Gore's gotta win no matter what I do."

Gore fourth for not letting Bill campaign for him----pride goeth before the fall, Big Guy. You let your ego get in the way of your service to your country. Hillary will not make that mistake.

I was in DC Jan 2001. There were more people there to witness the "Inauguration of the Fraudulent" than to celebrate. It was a very sad day.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:20 PM

LWolf (46,179 posts)

43. 4 and 5. nt

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:39 PM

TheKentuckian (23,947 posts)

45. USSC, BushCo. cronies, conservative Democrats, Gore, yellow, mealy mouth Democrats in that order.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:40 PM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

46. If you blame Nader, you legitmize Bush.

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #46)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:23 PM

Jim Lane (11,175 posts)

113. Would you extend that principle?

I wonder which of the following statements you'd agree with:

"If you blame Gore for picking Lieberman, you legitimize Bush."
"If you blame Gore for being a bad campaigner, you legitimize Bush."
"If you blame Gore for losing his home state, you legitimize Bush."
"If you blame Gore for not using Clinton more in the campaign, you legitimize Bush."

The reason I ask is that there's a pronounced double standard going on. People quite freely criticize Gore for choices he made. When someone criticizes Nader for the key choice he made, however, suddenly that line of argument is inadmissible. Nader critics are accused (falsely) of contending that Nader didn't have the right to run, or, as in your post, are accused of legitimizing Bush, by pointing to some factor other than the illegalities. Gore, by contrast, seems to be a free-fire zone -- people who criticize Gore for, e.g., picking Lieberman are never accused of arguing that Gore didn't have the legal right to pick Lieberman, nor are they ever accused of legitimizing Bush. That argument is trotted out only in defense of Nader.

Reply to this post

Response to Jim Lane (Reply #113)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:55 PM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

116. All of those things are irrelevant when the critical point is aknowledged: Gore won.

Gore rightfully won the popular vote. Gore rightfully won the electoral vote. Gore rightfully won the 2000 election.

There were hundreds of thousands of variables that could have widened Gore's margins or legitimately flipped the election. None of those actually matter, because Gore actually won.

For example, the butterfly ballots in Palm Beach County gave Buchanan an inordinate number of votes that clearly were meant to be for Gore. Nobody blames that, which is much more problematic to democracy than a third party candidate running a legal campaign.

I have no problem with conceding that Gore ran a poor campaign. I have a big problem when anyone suggests that the theft of a United States Presidency was due in part to the legal exercise of democracy. It is about focusing on the illegality that occurred.

I was and am a Gore supporter. I voted for Gore. He won, Bush stole it with held from his co-conspirators, Harris and five justices. It is that simple. Nader was not a spoiler, because Gore didn't actually lose.

Reply to this post

Response to morningfog (Reply #116)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:42 PM

Jim Lane (11,175 posts)

117. I try to pre-empt the "but Gore won!" response

I don't think I've said (at least not recently) that Nader was partly responsible for Bush winning. What I've said is that Nader was partly responsible for Bush becoming President.

Frankly, it seems sterile to me to say "Gore won" because it depends on a dodgy definition. I see no benefit in debating whether "won" means "became President" or "rightfully won". Instead, I state the undeniable fact -- Bush became President. That still leaves me perfectly free to criticize Harris and Nader and the butterfly ballot and SCOTUS and anyone else.

Why I blame Nader (among others): Nader had a right to decide to run and a right to decide not to run. He chose to exercise his undisputed right to run. It was foreseeable that that decision would help Bush and might even result in his election. What in fact happened was that Nader's decision was (in legal terms) a but-for cause of the Bush presidency, because if Nader had instead exercised his right to not run, Gore would have become President.

Nothing in the foregoing paragraph requires me to approve of Harris's purge or anything else. An event can have more than one cause. And I continue to maintain that plenty of DUers understand this principle when they're criticizing Gore about something, but suddenly abandon it when the issue is criticism of Nader. That's a double standard and is intellectually dishonest.

Reply to this post

Response to Jim Lane (Reply #117)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 05:54 AM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

121. I don't think I can say but-for Nader, Gore would have won.

First, Gore recieves more votes. Despite that fact, Bush stole the presidency and became president. I'm not confident that what happened in Florida was simply spontaneous and opportunistic or if bush was going to do whatever it takes, and the scenario that played out was the FL debacle.

If bush had rightfully won, I would agree that Nader was, one of many causes. But he he didn't. The blocked recount was an intervening, and illegal, cause. In the legal sense, the causation rests with Harris and the justices. They are solely liable.

A criminal act broke the chain of events. All the preceding legal acts are irrelevant of the causation. People are free to dislike Nader for his decision and his comments, and if bush were legitimately elected, he would share the blame for the aftermath.

But, the presidency was stolen and that is all that matters. To focus on Nader now does two things I disagree with. One, it legitimizes theft of elections. It suggests that if the margins are close enough, we must accept stolen elections in our system. Second, it discourages democracy and supports the duopoly.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:09 PM

reddread (6,896 posts)

48. the American sheeple

who quietly allowed justice to wither and die in a few short weeks.
And it will never come back.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:14 PM

damnedifIknow (3,183 posts)

49. Gore may not have became president but he did win

The myth that Bush would have won had the recount proceeded dates back to a recount conducted by a consortium of newspapers that examined the ballots. The consortium found that “If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won"

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-steal-the-election.html

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:15 PM

whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)

50. Fuck Ralph Nader

Last edited Thu Jul 3, 2014, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)

and Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning and Ratfuckers... Fuck everyone who have nothing to do with our real problems!

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:21 PM

Tony_FLADEM (3,015 posts)

51. Katharine Harris and Jeb Bush paying Diebold $4 million to cleanse the voter rolls of minorties

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:22 PM

Jenoch (7,720 posts)

52. If Democrats keep focusing on the past

we won't keep the senate and will also lose the Whitehouse.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:24 PM

Warpy (105,805 posts)

53. Jeb Bush, who refused a state wide recount

which led to the Felonious Five appointing Stupid our pResident.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:47 PM

BillZBubb (10,650 posts)

60. In the end, it was Gore's fault

He ran a terrible campaign. He ran away from Clinton and failed to use him in key states. Gore failed to work his home state and lost it. Gore simply wasn't a good campaigner.

That being said, Nader and those naïve enough to vote for him inflicted permanent damage on the United States by enabling bush to steal the White House.

The Democrats didn't have a strong candidate, so any third party that siphoned off potential Democratic votes was going to be fatal. Nader knew that, but went ahead anyway. Gore gets the loss, bush gets the win and Nader gets the assist.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:48 PM

Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)

61. It's the politicians job to convince voters to vote for him/her.

Gore went after the "moderate" voters and ignored the left. He didn't convince enough moderates or the left.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:38 AM

Electric Monk (13,869 posts)

67. After re-watching George Carlin: Jammin' in New York, I wonder if he voted Nader in 2000?

and this was from his 1992 Jammin' In New York show.

1992

Watch the whole thing if you have a few minutes, or if you're in a hurry you can jump to 4:51

4:51 "I love bad news. I love bad news. Hey! The more bad news there is, the faster this system collapses. Fine by me. Fine by me. Don't bother my ass. Don't bother my ass none. I'm glad the water sucks. I'm glad it sucks. You know what I do about it? I drink it."

R.I.P.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:41 AM

pnwmom (107,347 posts)

68. While other people had an effect, Nader was the single progressive with the greatest

impact on tossing the win to Bush. No other progressive, other than Gore, controlled 95,000 votes.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:42 AM

pansypoo53219 (19,956 posts)

70. i blame bill bradley. the gnewz media, AND nader.

and gore for picking lieberfuckenputz.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:34 AM

mattclearing (10,091 posts)

71. It was Bush.

They stole Florida. The Court was wrong, but Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris rigged the state with voter purges and Gore still carried it.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:29 AM

beerandjesus (1,301 posts)

73. Am I the only person on this forum who remembers the PMRC?

Because I guaran-fucking-tee, among people of my generation, the PMRC cost Gore far more votes than Nader.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:36 AM

lame54 (33,309 posts)

74. Where's Choicepoint?

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:47 AM

Bluenorthwest (45,319 posts)

75. SCOTUS and all the Republican voters who stacked that court.

Also the US Senate Democrats who refused to stand with the Black Caucus and continue the recount. Biden. Clinton. The lot of them. Not one Senator would stand. Not one.
Among our potential candidates for President we have one who voted for all the Republicans who appointed those nuts, another who refused to count the votes then swiftly voted for war while they all worried about flag burning and the threat of gay marriages. What a crappy history they have.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:14 AM

unblock (51,214 posts)

76. how about the damn media? ragging on gore's sighs and sweaters and supposed "lies"?

when al gore was pushing every federal agency to pour loads of immensely important information onto the "information superhighway", the press laughed at him.

this was the single most effective contribution to making the internet as popular and useful as it is today (well, after porn, of course).

then, when gore touted his achievement, they twisted his words and meaning to make it sound like he was claiming to have been the engineers behind the technical invention of the internet. the press covered the "lie" relentlessly, and virtually never acknowledged what a huge contribution gore made to building the internet.

the media has become hugely right-wing and odious, and that almost seems normal now. but their behavior in the election of 2000 was abominable.

Reply to this post

Response to unblock (Reply #76)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:22 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

77. That's a good point

They certainly tended to go after Gore, not Bush.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #77)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:39 AM

unblock (51,214 posts)

80. oh, they were so tough on shrub. the teetotaler you'd love to have a beer with!

Reply to this post

Response to unblock (Reply #76)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:00 AM

Punkingal (9,522 posts)

92. Thank you!

eom

Reply to this post

Response to unblock (Reply #76)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 02:54 PM

noiretextatique (27,274 posts)

124. the media was complicit

In the judicial coup.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:23 AM

B Calm (28,762 posts)

78. Seeing how Gore really won Florida, the Supreme Court is the only logical answer!

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:30 AM

LonePirate (12,784 posts)

79. I blame the Democratic reviewers who approved the wonky design of the Palm Beach ballot

Listing Gore in the second position on the left but associating him with the third hole punch cost him at least 25,000 or more of the 30,000 votes Pat Buchanan received in that county alone. There are no controversies or court cases if Democratic reviewers had objected to that awful ballot design.

Reply to this post

Response to LonePirate (Reply #79)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:32 AM

B Calm (28,762 posts)

82. but even with all the dirty shenanigans that went on in Florida, Gore still had more votes.

So SC overturning the election is the one to point your finger at.

Reply to this post

Response to B Calm (Reply #82)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:41 AM

LonePirate (12,784 posts)

83. The SC would never had intervened as there would have been no month long recount

If that ballot had Gore's name and hole punch on the same line, there would have been no Supreme Court case. Any recount would have been completed, had one even occurred if Gore had led by 25,000 after the election.

Reply to this post

Response to LonePirate (Reply #83)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:45 AM

B Calm (28,762 posts)

85. There are a lot of different angles and reasons to blame, but

it still all comes down to the Supreme Court deciding the election.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:00 AM

truth2power (8,219 posts)

81. Supreme Court. It was not Nader...

Chris Hedges explained it clearly in his book, "The Death of the Liberal Class".

I will have to, fercrissakes, re-borrow that book from the public library and copy those paragraphs from the book so I can have it available when people say it was all Nader's fault.

Of course that would ensure that Hedges gets stuffed under the bus, here. Unless he's there already; I can't keep up.

> > > >

Oh, and every time someone mentions Ralph Nader I can't help but think of the two little girls in my neighborhood, the same ages as my children, who were killed in a horrible auto accident at a nearby intersection, many years ago. Thrown from the car.

Buried in their Easter dresses, they were.

That was before seat-belts. Yeah.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:43 AM

joeybee12 (56,177 posts)

84. You should have also included the spinless Dems in Congress as an option...nt

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:46 AM

Aerows (39,961 posts)

87. Florida cronies

all the way.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:37 AM

mia (8,172 posts)

95. Diebold Indicted: Its spectre still haunts Ohio elections

http://freepress.org/article/diebold-indicted-its-spectre-still-haunts-ohio-elections-0

October 31, 2013

Diebold: the controversial manufacturer of voting and ATM machines, whose name conjures up the demons of Ohio’s 2004 presidential election irregularities, is now finally under indictment for a “worldwide pattern of criminal conduct.” Federal prosecutors filed charges against Diebold, Inc. on Tuesday, October 22, 2013 alleging that the North Canton, Ohio-based security and manufacturing company bribed government officials and falsified documents to obtain business in China, Indonesia and Russia....

This is not the first time Diebold’s been accused of bribery. In 2005, the Free Press exposed that Matt Damschroder, Republican chair of the Franklin County of Elections in 2004, reported that a key Diebold operative told Damschroder he made a $50,000 contribution to then-Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell's “political interests” while Blackwell was evaluating Diebold's bids for state purchasing contracts. Damschroder admitted to personally accepting a $10,000 check from former Diebold contractor Pasquale “Patsy” Gallina made out to the Franklin County Republican Party. That contribution was made while Damschroder was involved in evaluating Diebold bids for county contracts. Damschroder was suspended for a month without pay for the incident. Despite the scandal, he was later appointed as Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted's Director of Elections.

Diebold was at the center of Ohio’s 2004 election debacle, much of this captured in an article by Free Press Senior Editor Harvey Wasserman and this author, entitled, “Diebold’s Political Machine.” Walden "Wally" O'Dell, chairman of the board and chief executive of Diebold, was a long-time funder of Republican candidates. In September 2003, he held a packed $1,000-per-head GOP fundraiser at his 10,800-square-foot mansion Cotswold Manor in Upper Arlington, Ohio. He was feted as a guest at then-President George W. Bush's Texas ranch, joining a cadre of “Pioneers and Rangers” who pledged to raise more than $100,000 for the Bush reelection campaign.

Most memorably, in 2003 O'Dell penned a letter pledging his commitment “to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President.” O'Dell defended his actions, telling the Cleveland Plain Dealer “I'm not doing anything wrong or complicated.” But he also promised to lower his political profile and “try to be more sensitive.” But the Diebold boss' partisan cards were squarely on the table.....

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:56 AM

NM_Birder (1,591 posts)

96. climate change ?

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:15 PM

MisterP (23,730 posts)

98. Jeb and Harris--but the people blaming Nader KNOW that, as much as Rummy and Cheneybeast

knew Iraq didn't "do" 9-11

the only analogous situation I can think of is if half the people on the internet insisted the Egyptian pharaohs were all in the 9th c. AD, or believed Giordano Bruno was a science martyr

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:20 PM

hrmjustin (71,265 posts)

99. Nader , theft, and the Gore campaign.

Nader took more votes from Gore. If he didn't run Gore would not have had to spend as much time in NM, OR, WI, and IA. With that extra time he could have spent more time in other states. Nader cost gore NH and FL plain and simple. Nader deserves a large amount of the blame.

Theft is a big part and the Gore Campaign was not run well.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:32 PM

MineralMan (144,947 posts)

100. It was your fault, Manny.

Just as it will be your fault if a Republican becomes President in 2016. It will be the fault of all of those who discouraged voting and reduced turnout. And that's the bottom line, really. If every Democrat actually went to the polls, there would be no question about the results. If someone discourages voters from participating or convinces them to vote for third parties, we all lose.

It is that simple, my friend.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

Election Activism-way MineralManny

Reply to this post

Response to MineralMan (Reply #100)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:49 PM

KamaAina (78,249 posts)

104. When did the OP ever do that?

If someone discourages voters from participating or convinces them to vote for third parties, we all lose.

Reply to this post

Response to KamaAina (Reply #104)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:31 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

109. It's obvious to anyone who really pays attention

What, you can't see the Emperor's new clothes?

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #109)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:31 PM

HangOnKids (4,291 posts)

111. The Mineral Manny sig is creepy

But hey you know he is always right!

Reply to this post

Response to MineralMan (Reply #100)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:32 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

110. Is this my fault, too?

http://www.iop.harvard.edu/Spring-2014-HarvardIOP-Survey

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:58 PM

El Supremo (20,289 posts)

106. Sandra Day O'Connor in particular

She regretted her vote later.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:32 PM

bigtree (82,466 posts)

114. chad, nader, then Peggy Noonan and Tweety

. . . for going on and on about the sighing during the debate.

Oh, yeah, then nader again, just because chad.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:35 PM

Jim Lane (11,175 posts)

115. I refused to select because trying to name one is comparing apples and oranges.

Katherine Harris's ballot purge was illegal. Nader's decision to run was legal but stupid. The SCOTUS decision was in between -- the Court has the legal power to resolve appeals but is supposed to resolve them on the basis of the law, not politics. Its decision was a dereliction of duty but wasn't a clear-cut illegality the way Harris's purge was. As for Gore, how do you evaluate decisions when you have the benefit of hindsight, and he didn't? All the people screaming about the Lieberman pick should consider that maybe Lieberman on the ticket helped make Florida close in the first place.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 05:26 PM

Oakenshield (614 posts)

122. Just so no one gets confused...

I do believe the Supreme Court is foremost to blame, but I voted for Gore instead...because it's bullshit Nader gets more blame than Gore's shitty campaign.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 02:53 PM

noiretextatique (27,274 posts)

123. SCOTUS deserves ALL the blame

Eom

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 02:55 PM

yurbud (39,405 posts)

125. You need a Jeb AND Supreme Court option

Jeb made it close enough for the Supreme Court to be in play.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 02:56 PM

kentuck (108,538 posts)

126. It was my fault...

I take full responsibility.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 03:00 PM

yurbud (39,405 posts)

128. three words tip it Jeb: FELON VOTER PURGE of 82,389 mostly black voters

oddly, those who like to blame Nader glide over this.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 03:52 PM

RandySF (41,402 posts)

129. I will never forgive Nader

I'll never forget him going around the country and telling the press that W was too dumb to be a danger to the country.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 04:08 PM

lumberjack_jeff (33,224 posts)

131. Plenty of blame to go around.

but the court has the lions share.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 04:08 PM

HooptieWagon (17,064 posts)

132. Many reasons, but ultimately Al Gore.

Had he run a better campaign, none of the other shit mattered or would have happened.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 04:32 PM

joshcryer (62,167 posts)

136. Wow, more blame for Gore than Nader.

We are lost.

Reply to this post

Response to joshcryer (Reply #136)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 05:28 PM

socialist_n_TN (11,481 posts)

137. Why is this a surprise? I expected this outcome....

DU, as a whole, is a WHOLE lot more to the left than the cheerleaders are. And EVERY POLL TAKEN PROVES IT!

There are several very prolific posters on here that are "centrist" or "conservative" Dems (?), but they are just noisy and prolific. They're not the majority of the posters on this site.

Reply to this post

Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #137)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 08:10 PM

joshcryer (62,167 posts)

138. DU was created due to Gore being sabotaged!

Those who place most of the blame on Gore are either ignorant or forgetful of the theft.

Reply to this post

Response to joshcryer (Reply #138)

Sun Jul 6, 2014, 09:12 AM

socialist_n_TN (11,481 posts)

139. Who's placing most of the blame on Gore? Not this poll......

This poll places the blame where it belongs, on the SCOTUS.

Actually as I recall, Gore DID deserve some blame by the type of campaign he ran. Not the majority blame just like Nader shouldn't get majority blame. But yes, Al Gore should get some blame.

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)