"we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them"

[joshcryer]

I suggested a Bush victory would be a disaster for everything that Nader has worked for and believed in all his life, just as Ronald Reagan's had been. "With all due respect," I said, "Ralph's Tweedledee and Tweedledum argument isn't true and most people know it. By saying that the two candidates are the same, Ralph undermines his own credibility. Ralph has spent his whole life telling the truth. He doesn't need to say things in this campaign that aren't true."

Tarek interrupted me. "People get that point wrong. Ralph doesn't say there is 'no difference;' He says there is 'no major difference'." Tarek also said that lots of environmental groups say it would be easier to fund raise and increase membership under Bush than Gore.

...

I then turned to my favorite argument. I said: "There are those who say at the end of World War Two, that instead of dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. should have taken the Japanese high command out to some island and shown them what this new bomb could do. The U.S. could have demonstrated their destructive weapon without actually taking hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. Ralph could do they same thing. The large vote in the 40 or so safe states would send a real political message; the low or non Nader turnout in the close states would show that Nader sent people to Gore and that he had that kind of power. If he did this, he would be someone to be reckoned with. If Gore won, Nader would have real influence for progressive causes, and he could continue to build his movement and the Green Party. If Gore lost, Nader would have substantial credibility and power within the Democratic party. By holding back in a handful of states now, he could demonstrate his capacity to cause real damage in the future, and gain much in the short and the long run."

Tarek did not disagree with that at all. Instead, leaning toward me, with a bit of extra steel in his voice and body, but without changing his cool tone and demeanor, he simply said, "We are not going to do that." "Why not?" I said. With just a flicker of smile, Tarek said: "Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them."

http://www.hereinstead.com/Ralph-Nader-As-Mad-Bomber.html

OK, so I really don't need a lecture about votes, about people sitting at home, about more Democrats voting for Bush than people who voted for Nader. Those arguments are fine. But that's not how it went down for us junkies.

I remember that campaign and I remember the vote switching campaigns that were happening, where Nader voters would promise to vote for Gore in swing states while Gore supporters would vote for Nader in safe states. This was pretty damn unprecedented.

The fact is there was a concerted effort by Nader's campaign to stick one to the Democrats. One of Nader's biggest philosophical talking points was that it "must get worse before it gets better," or something to that effect. He went on the attack, calling environmental supporters of Gore "servile." Don't forget the Tweedledee and Tweedledum crap.

Whether you want to remember this or rewrite history or whatever, just know that Nader focused on swing states. States where he wasn't going to get as many votes as other, safe, states. This arguably caused the Green Party to lose its ability to get federal funding for the next elections and caused the party to fall into obscurity. We had our chance and we blew it.

Nader broke his promise to not campaign in those swing states. We wanted to create a new liberal party, one that might actually have sway, like the teaparty / Libertarians have sway now. Instead what we got is a rock in a hard place and it sucks.

So please don't lecture me about that time, what matters that we got screwed over, first by Nader breaking his promise and trying to do a scorched earth strategy (which worked, btw), then by Gore doing selective recounting, then by the election board stopping the count, then the final blow by the SCOTUS that left an * stain on our history. A million or so dead Iraqi's. Billions lost to bankers. No significant climate change mitigation. The erosion of rights, NSA spying, Citizens United, Oligarchy United, and todays decision, Citizens United Against Women Health Care. We got royally screwed.

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. Lots of leftist groups in on the $cam. "Fundraising" is much easier under Republicans.

[pnwmom]

8. Yup. And Nader's Public Citizen is one of the winners under a Rethug administration.

[Tarheel_Dem]

81. +1. It's the same reason I don't take FDL seriously anymore.

[joshcryer]

4. Did I paint such a narrative?

I don't think I did. I think it was damn clear that Nader saw he could cause damage and he did. What he didn't predict is that it would lead to the Green Party falling into obscurity and that the rebound would be through an uber-bipartisan President, causing a slow and painful crawl out of despotism.

Oh it'll get better alright. After setting progress back 10-20 years.

[pnwmom]

10. Tell that to the Nader supporters who thought he was a hero. n/t

[BillZBubb]

3. Nader destroyed any respect intelligent, informed people might have for him

It was clear exactly what he was up to in that election. He wanted to be the spoiler and hurt the Democrats. A lot of naïve people supported him and helped severely wound the United States for decades.

[BootinUp]

5. We are in a bad way,

and I just want us to turn this thing around. How many more decisions like todays will be coming out of this travesty of a Court?

I think I was the first one that brought up Nader today, so blame me for that. Because I put a lot of blame on that factor in the 2000 disaster. I would listen to Bush and Cheney and could see how bad they would be. And there are some lessons there, we should not just flush it down the memory hole. But I do not want this board to stay on the subject for the next two weeks. No there are better things to talk about.

I think people should be reminded of the inherent problem with a 3rd party candidate that would impact the Democratic candidate, and also of how turnout can be depressed by circular firing squads. But thats all, I am not trying to start a purge. Maybe someone wants one but not me.

[joshcryer]

6. Looks like they'll be eroding the EEOC next.

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/06/supreme-court-adds-5-cases-to-docket.php

[Bonobo]

7. Here's a major problem with your argument.

This thing about the warning... about how the Dems could be "warned" with just a 40 state approach.... Well, problem is it doesn't fit with the facts.

If a strong showing in 40 states had the ability to "warn" the Dems to be more Progressive, than how much more so the fact that Nader "gave the POTUS" to Bush (a statement I think is laughable)? I mean, by your logic, such an outcome would have made it clear to the Dem Party that they need to stay closer to their Progressive base, something that does not seem to be a motivating issue at all.

So, no, I actually think that the Dems need to be given a much clearer message from those that represent the interests of the 98% until they actually start listening.

[geek tragedy]

9. So, per your last paragraph you want Democrats

to lose more elections?

Surprisingly candid.

[BootinUp]

13. This is not unusual from that DU'er. nt

[geek tragedy]

14. Nope. Though usually more coy. nt

[Bonobo]

16. No, I want them to be taught the foolishness of ignoring their base. nt

[JI7]

40. the base of the party are minorities and women voters which are voting Dem

greater than ever. and the reason we are done better in winning the presidency.

[geek tragedy]

80. Their base is African-Americans, Latinos, GLBT, Asians, younger voters, and

urban professionals.

People who voted for Nader are categorically excluded from membership in the Democratic base.

[joshcryer]

18. It's about building the Green Party, not necessarily shifting Dems.

I think it unquestionably makes the Dems listen to the Greens in that scenario. Politics is tit for tat. So you get a Democratic Party that has for the first time a challenge from the left that has 5% of the vote, and that party just helped your guy win by staying out of the swing states.

How do you treat that party?

Well see see that Al Gore moved far left without even being President. With that kind of pressure? I think the Party probably makes a shift. The ideas start getting heard. More Greens get represented in Congress and the Democrats would be for the first time challenged to hear more radical ideas.

I think history bore that out. Look at the influence the teabaggers have (well, had, they've managed to almost marginalize themselves now).

[JI7]

11. that's why he refused to support Paul Wellstone until very late

and even then it was very weak.

but being the opportunist he is , when wellstone died he praised him like he never did while he was alive.

[geek tragedy]

12. Don't forget his sneering reference to "gonadal politics"

Nader is a piece of shit, and his followers the same.

[betterdemsonly]

15. People care about other issues besides just abortion

and the dems have sold those groups out. If they lose votes as a result of it, that the breaks. It is called democracy. You have to win voters. If you don't, you lose and it is your fault.

[progressoid]

17. Sorry, but 308,000 Democrats voting for Bush vs 24000 for Nader is hard to overlook.

[joshcryer]

19. A similar amount of Republicans voted for Gore.

And Nader got 97,488 votes, the "24,000" number is the number Nader thinks would've voted for Gore had he not run or something like that. It's to diminish the result.

[betterdemsonly]

20. Maybe you should straighten up and start expressing serious

concern about things Nader voters care about. Your opponants aren't oblgated to help you win elections and voters don't owe you anything.

[joshcryer]

21. I'm just trying to clear up the revisionism.

Nader really did try to screw things up for Gore, it wasn't like he was running a regular campaign that got as many votes as it could get (which would've given the party federal funding and assure its dominance as a third party going forward).

[betterdemsonly]

22. I don't deny Nader may have gotten votes from the left side of the democrats

I do deny he had any obligation to help Gore win, or that voters owed Gore anything. Gore lost the election for himself. Nader didn't screw anything up for Gore. Gore just lost voters period.

[joshcryer]

29. I don't think he was obligated to help Gore.

But I think strategically, for the Green Party, and for the country, it would've been the correct choice. I think Nader had a better idea, take the country down a notch, then get elected (or have an even more impressive showing) in 2004. But I think 9/11 changed the equation insurmountably. By 2004 support for him dropped some 75% and it doesn't look like there will be a Green Party revival any time soon.

Maybe after the arctic sea ice melts and is gone for a good part of the year.

[Jim Lane]

34. I largely agree with you but disagree about 9/11.

Well before 9/11, the whole Florida debacle, and the issue of Nader's effect, had received considerable attention. Nader's voters from 2000 were familiar with the argument that their decision had effectively put Bush in the White House.

Obviously, 9/11 helped Bush press an even more extreme right-wing agenda. Nevertheless, even without 9/11, it would have been obvious that his "compassionate conservatism" was just a campaign slogan.

The falloff in Nader's support from 2000 to 2004 (actually a bit more than 80%) would have happened even without 9/11, as those who had previously voted for him were reminded, with every day's newspaper, of what a horrible mistake they had made.

[joshcryer]

36. I think the gambit might have worked, though.

By 2004 the people would've seen how shitty Bush's polices were and maybe would've given Nader a 5-10% vote, that gets the Green Party federal funding.

I think 9/11 allowed Bush to invade another country and he gets reelected because of "patriotism."

Nader ran with the gambit, the "cold shower" for the Democrats, that things would "get worse before they got better" and if 9/11 didn't happen I think Bush would've been in trouble in 2004. Not that Nader had a shot in hell at winning, but that Kerry could win and the Green Party could get it's 5% it needed to become more relevant.

I don't think at any point Nader really believed he could win the Presidency.

To me 9/11 is the deciding factor because I think Bush dropped the ball really hard on Clinton's intel. I can see Gore calling up Clinton and talking about the airplane memo and Clinton telling Gore, straight up, to take it seriously. Maybe it would not have been prevented, but we wouldn't have gone to Iraq (and there may in fact have been an Iraq/Iran Arab spring by the time Obama came around).

OK we're in super speculative territory I'm just expressing where I stand here. I can definitely see where you are coming from with regards to 2004 Nader. It still sucks we lost that one.

[Jim Lane]

66. Trading speculations here....

In one of your scenarios, Kerry wins in 2004 but the Greens get 5%. I see that as a very unlikely combination. A Green total of as much as 5% makes it tough for a Democrat to win. Just for comparison, in the official totals for 2004, Bush beat Kerry by about 2.5% of the popular vote.

Granted, much of the Green total in your scenario is in safely blue states. Kerry could conceivably win the Presidency even though, with his margin in places like California eroded by the Greens, he loses the popular vote to Bush.

For the long run, I agree with your observation that the Green Party has fallen into obscurity and irrelevance. I see that as a good thing, though. With the institutional factors that shore up the dominance of the two major parties, the existence of a strong Green Party (Getting Republicans Elected Every November) would do more harm than good. Let the Greens run their candidates in the Democratic primaries instead.

That would also be an improvement on the "gambit" strategy you mention. If Nader runs in the general election but campaigns only in safe states, he still loses some blue-state and red-state voters who like him but who want to vote against Bush, and he still picks up some votes in swing states from people who don't focus on the realities. Therefore, the contrast wouldn't be all that sharp. A better way for him to demonstrate the strength of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party would have been for him to run in the primaries. He probably couldn't have denied Gore the nomination, but I'll bet his vote total would have been higher. He would also have reaped a host of other advantages, such as using his debates with Gore and Bradley to popularize and legitimize progressive ideas, and helping to build a network of activists within the Democratic Party who could then help good candidates for many offices for years to come.

[joshcryer]

69. You make good points.

I can't say my Nader gambit acquiescence is on the mark. Perhaps I give him too much credit in my alternate scenario. Just sucks he fought in swing states when if he cared about the Green Party he should've focused on states that would've been more friendly. It just, from an emotional perspective, feels like he ruined the possibility for a good third party I'd be more amiable to.

Thanks for taking the time to write out your alternate scenario, it makes me think about my earlier position. It never really occurred to me he should have ran as a Democrat. If he could've pulled those numbers as a Democrat I think I'd concede the point. Not sure on that, though, so I am still on the fence with this speculation. Still, good points, and nice alternate history speculation to think about.

[betterdemsonly]

38. Do we not have a dem potus

How is Nader to blame for dems droping the ball since 2008? Please explain?

[joshcryer]

42. He had Congress for a whole 39 days.

Thanks to the Republicans holding up Al Franken. So it's not his fault that he got not too much done. This is the most unproductive Congress in history, so to blame the President I think is wrong.

If any time the Democrats dropped the ball it's in 2010 by allowing the teabaggers to get out 9% more votes.

[betterdemsonly]

44. He had both houses from 2008 to 2010

so it isn't just the republicans. Even when he is in control of both houses he did little. Also if dems have so little influence once elected why is it tragic to see them lose?

[joshcryer]

45. Al Franken wasn't seated and Ted Kennedy died.

It really was a 39 day window when anything could be done without the filibuster ruining everything, and we see how the filibuster has worked out. Then you had to pander to Lieberman who was for all intents a Republican (if I recall correctly he even caucused with them or was going to).

[betterdemsonly]

46. What Gore's Vp

The man Clinton, Obama and Kerry campaigned for over Ned Lamont, governed as a republican? Who knew?

[joshcryer]

48. No doubt Gore fucked that up.

He screwed up the VP pick, he screwed up distancing himself from the highly popular Clinton at the time, he screwed up doing selective recounting which anyone could've told him would've benefited Bush (in pro-Gore areas the ballots would trend to Bush since the counters were biased).

Oh, and importantly, he screwed up not creating a shadow presidency and fighting tooth and nail the illegitimate Bush who could've been impeached shortly after 9/11 happened if he played it right...

Yeah, Gore played it safe. I will never forgive him as I was part of the Draft Gore movement and he let us down hard.

[betterdemsonly]

49. Thank you for that?

Do think trying gain the trust of Nader voters is more productive than assigning blame? Politics is addition not subtraction. "Vote for me you stupid fuckers!" is not a good campaign slogan. Particularly when you have failed to deliver on issues that a voter might care about.

See that is the problem. I voted for Gore as a lesser evil but I was highly tempted to vote Nader, because Gore had so many issues that seemed like betrayals, particularly by nominating Lieberman.

I am highly skeptical of those who claim Gore would have reacted to 9/11 differently than Bush. Lieberman and Peretz were neocons. I think the only difference would have been UN approval but he would have gone in there never the less.

Look at the behavior of other dlcers. Look at Obama's tendency to indulge neocons like Victoria Nuland, on Syria, the Ukraine and now Iraq. We're sending advisors to Iraq.

[joshcryer]

51. Most Nader supporters were waffling independents.

It is impossible to please them.

Al Gore didn't fail to deliver on issues, Nader lied his way into a failed candidacy and a totally fucked political history. There's a reason the Green Party is nothing now.

Lieberman was the safe bet, but we see where Gore stood on the issues, as his activist career has proven.

[betterdemsonly]

54. Actually an activist career proves nothing

since activists don't have anything on the line. Obama claimed to be antiwar till he got into office. he has gotten us into three of them. The only difference is he uses drones instead of troops but he is not antiwar.

How someone behaves in office says alot more than how someone behaves after they retire.

[joshcryer]

57. Gore's career after leaving office is untarnished.

Even if I disagree with him on cap and trade and offsets he has been the leader on climate change, bar none. His nobel prize is well deserved and history will prove that.

Obama's use of targeted killing is reprehensible, but he does so with the implicit consent of the states where he does it. Pakistan, for example, has had politicians for calling shooting down the drones. They have not been elected. Drones are easily shot down, they're slow, have a large radar profile, and are generally stopped. Obama has done what any President with power has done, used whatever he can to fuck shit up. I am against targeted killing and I am for any state in which Obama commits to targeted killing filing charges at the ICC for war crimes. So far none have done so. Which tells me some private agreements exist and he's acting within those states' desires.

Other than that Obama has fulfilled his 2008 nomination speech to the tee. From cutting the deficit to getting Bin Laden. Dude hasn't deviated where it was within his power. People complain about the mandate, but he was forced to accept it, as per Sanders, because the CBO said that not doing so would be more costly (as, of course, Krugman, Hillary Clinton, and others, noted years earlier).

[betterdemsonly]

61. He wasn't forced to accept the mandate at all

he just wanted it because it was good for his donors.

[joshcryer]

64. Yes he was, read Sanders' remarks on mandates.

The CBO said without mandates ACA would've been billions more. Sanders voted for the ACA.

Obama had no choice. And the ACA is better for it because without mandates we don't get single payer (which itself is a mandate with a felony charge if you don't agree with it since it falls under the IRS).

[betterdemsonly]

67. Deficite Hawkery has never been compatable with progressivism

n/t

[betterdemsonly]

56. Gore failed on many fronts

he backed off national health insurance in favor of only insuring children, and he didn't bother to submit Kyoto all in the interest of appealing to waffling independents. Also if Nader voters don't matter, and can't be pleased, why all the guilt tripping of Nader of winning them? They're unwinnable according to you and so they don't make any difference.

[joshcryer]

60. It's apparant you're just googling anti-Gore stuff now.

Obama ran on a children insurance mandate, it worked.

Gore helped draft Kyoto.

Nader voters are just basically low information soundbyte voters. I'm not saying a message shouldn't be directed at them, certainly a low information soundbytes work. Obama proved that, with his ultimate of ultimate consumer campaigns of all time, projecting a populist while in reality being uber-bipartisan. How many idiots voted for Obama when he was merely a junior senator from Illinois with little strategic political experience? Millions.

[betterdemsonly]

63. Then your pretty damn cynical

and only care about horse race shit instead of authentic accomplishment so who cares about your damn whining.

[joshcryer]

65. Cynicism defines the political junkie.

[BootinUp]

52. How could the VP nom equal an issue exactly?

The VP has extremely limited power, he basically serves the President.

Where as throwing an election is akin to setting oneself on fire in protest.

The proposition seems like a silly fabrication.

[betterdemsonly]

55. Well you know that VP Dick Cheney

had no influence at all.

You realize Gore's justification for Lieberman was his foriegn policy experience.

[BootinUp]

59. Cheney did what Bush told/allowed him to do. Little thing called the Constitution

thats involved.

And therefore Gore would have set the policy and Lieberman would have followed orders.

[progressoid]

25. Not according to exit polls

According to exit polls (available at ABC), 13% of Florida Democrats voted for Bush -- that's more than 150,000 -- while only 8% of Republicans voted for Gore. Almost equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans voted for Nader.

http://rosenlake.net/er/green/goreloss.html

[joshcryer]

26. Similar enough.

Regardless, neither Democrats that voted for Bush or Democrats that voted for Nader thought Gore was better. And I suspect Nader's heavy campaigning contributed to that as well.

[progressoid]

28. 8% and 13% are hardly similar.

[joshcryer]

30. 90% and 85% are.

Assuming 2% of voters voted for Nader on both Democrats and Republicans side.

It's all in how you look at the number.

[JDPriestly]

23. True. I voted for Gore. Since you sort of asked.

I blame Sandra Day O'Connor for Bush's 8 years of squandering on wars and privatization.

I blame Sandra Day O'Connor for Bush's bigoted appointments to the Supreme Court. The Hobby Lobby decision would not have happened had Sandra Day O-Connor sided with Gore in 200. And remember, Sandra Day O'Connor wrote these poignant words in the Decision Casey v. Planned Parenthood. I am going to post excerpts from that decision this evening.

[joshcryer]

24. O'Connor should've recused herself.

O'Connor was reported to have been devastated when FL was called for Gore, stormed out of a dinner party, complaining about not being able to retire. You can't make this shit up. Unfortunately reports of her outburst didn't surface until later. Had we known about it at the time, there would've undoubtedly been calls for her to recuse herself or she could've possibly been disqualified by the other justices.

[Cha]

31. And, since she realized.. "Sandra Day O’Connor Finally Realizes Bush v. Gore Ruling Was Terrible

Sandra Day O’Connor Finally Realizes Bush v. Gore Ruling Was Terrible

Read more at http://wonkette.com/514178/sandra-day-oconnor-finally-realizes-bush-v-gore-ruling-was-terrible#rxd5PDgLgGXc3UAX.99

[Enthusiast]

33. I believe she has since said that her decision might have been wrong.

Little good that does us now.

[Cha]

27. Oh fuck yeah.. "TweedleDum and TweedleDee". When it's Nader who's TweedleDum and TweedleDee

rolled into one. nader got 90,000 friggin votes in Florida with his Stupid Spiel.

Good post.. Thanks josh!

[JI7]

37. yes, this is the shit that i hate, the fucking lies about no difference

you want to support the greens or other third party do so. in fact i encourage certain types to but i know they aren't actually going to go out and support another party as they mostly want attention .

[Cha]

39. Lies.. exactly. And now naderites are using nader double speak to claim when we say "nader" we

mean "the political left".. paranoid and whipping out the victim care to absolved any blame for nader. Orwellian doublespeak.. up is down and down is up crap.

[freshwest]

32. K&R

[Cha]

35. Kick

[Cha]

41. Nader "punished" the whole damn country. Especially the family and loved one of those Killed in Iraq

[joshcryer]

43. "cold shower" indeed...

...

[Cha]

47. the Law of Unintended consequences from Lying to get Votes.. and now the naders are out

trying to absolve him from any part of it being so close in Florida that it got before the extreme court 5 and of course they went with bush.

thanks again for the OP, josh!

[joshcryer]

50. I don't even care about that.

I am more annoyed that Nader gets a pass when he explicitly, overtly, tried to screw Gore over. He ran in swing states. There were campaigns to do vote exchanges (never before happened) which even Michael Moore was behind. Everyone knew that it was a tight election. Everyone knew that Nader was throwing a wrench into things. Read my links. They are from 2000. Nothing is made up. Use the Way Back Machine on several articles referenced in my first link. It was real. It was visceral. It sucked.

I almost want to start several other OPs about how Nader was directly attacking Gore (while leaving Bush alone) the whole time. When it was called Nader was ecstatic. The Republicans cheered Nader. They actually blessed him and said he was their hero, shit like that.

People don't remember. Remember, this was when Crossfire and shit was at its heyday. This was when MediaWhoresOnline came online and we were criticizing the utter failure of our media to even provide a coherent narrative. It was a nightmare. People just don't remember. It's been too long. The media saturation has made them complacent. It's just beyond them.

I remember. It was a nightmare. I literally could not sleep at night. I didn't vote for Clinton in 1996, but I voted happily and proudly for Gore in 2000. It devastated me, then when the Draft Gore movement fell apart after his Brookings institute speech declaring that he wouldn't run, I became increasingly disillusioned. When the Dean scream happened? I had to take a hiatus from this site (would've been banned otherwise because I didn't think Kerry was the one).

[Cha]

53. Oh yeah, some are grasping on to a thread of a pass for nader but it's double speak and doesn't

fly with logic and the facts on the ground in Florida.

I was among those in that nightmare with you.. I was obsessed.. and that's when I found out for real that the US media was our enemy of the state. Double freaking whammy.

I too took a break from the site when Kerry one the Nom.. wanted Dean badly.. but I came back after a break because I wanted to help Kerry beat bush.

[betterdemsonly]

58. Why do you have such faith Gore would have kept us out of Iraq

given all of his neocon ties? Joe Lieberman, Martin Peretz and so on and so forth.

[joshcryer]

62. Al Gore on September 23, 2002?

About 6 months before the invasion?

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

[betterdemsonly]

68. A position he took out of office

There is no reason to believe it wasn't posturing of sort John Kerry and Barack Obama have done. They were antiBush war. Then after elected they were just against Bush's style of war.

[joshcryer]

70. He appeared to be running in 2004.

The Draft Gore movement was extremely popular. There was no indication until his Brookings speech that he wasn't running again.

Gore would've won in 2004 if he made the effort, but he decided to make money instead (Apple board, book deals, speaking engagements). I don't blame him, he obviously had a different trajectory he'd decided upon. I think it was faulty. He won the nobel peace price for a reason. The world community wanted him to run.

[Cha]

72. And, Gore would have micromangaged the shit out of that August 6th memo.

[joshcryer]

75. +1

[Cha]

71. Why do you even ask such a stupid question?

[BootinUp]

73. Because she doesn't want to talk about Nader?

[Cha]

74. Really. Distract with stupid inanity.. that's the ticket.

[DetlefK]

76. Sidenote: It wasn't Hiroshima and Nagasaki who broke Japan's will to fight.

They feared an invasion by soviet ground-forces should the war continue.

[joshcryer]

77. The firebombing campaigns killed more.

I don't think Japanese will was to falter to the bombings, but it was clear after the first bombing they were reluctant to give up (the terms of course being unconditional; a point many historians get upset over; if only we left the Emperor in charge, etc).

The second bomb unquestionably gave them pause.

Would it be that we simply demonstrated the power at our disposal.

[Javaman]

78. it seems that this topic pops up from time to time, for whatever reason...

how does rehashing the past solve anything? Especially, this topic?

we are where we are. Deal with the present.

[IronLionZion]

79. Many DUers feel the urge to punish Democrats

Since Democratic Underground exists to bury the Democrats deep Underground. That will teach them!

Moderate dems from red states in congress can't vote the wrong way if they are removed from office and replaced by tea party!

[Jamaal510]

84. "Since Democratic Underground exists to bury the Democrats deep Underground."

[Bluenorthwest]

82. During the 2000 election I was busy talking jaded showbiz liberals into voting for Gore over Nader

And I did very well with it. I very much doubt the OP or the other simplistic thinkers here did as much, because few have the sort of opportunities I had at that time to influence so many Green type voters.
But the reason I had to work so hard was that Nader had something of a point about the differences between the Parties being less distinct that they should be. If you do not agree, consider the fact that in 2008, Al Gore's running mate endorsed the Republican ticket of McCain/ Palin live on the stage of the Republican National Convention. Palin. The guy on our ticket turns around and endorses Palin. This indicates that there was not, in fact, enough difference between our ticket and theirs.

I'll also add that in 2008, while Al's VP choice was working to elect Palin, the Greens around here rallied to support Barack Obama. I saw with my eyes Michelle Obama grinning and speaking to them with a charm that is sadly lacking 'round these parts. Some of them wore 'Green Dog Democrat' tee shirts. Joe was for the Republicans. The Greens were with us.

And one more thing. Any election in which more people don't even vote than vote is a failure of the Party that believes in voting. To whine that voters voted for others when you could have registered and motivated thousands more voters than you'd need to win twice is self indulgent nonsense.

[joshcryer]

85. I had a very different experience.

I was in a marginally red state, Nader never came up on anybody's radar I knew. I was a huge Nader admirer, and I appreciated what he brought to the table. I was extremely pissed off he was not allowed to be at the debates. I was completely disgusted by the Lieberman pick. Lieberman's debate performance was atrocious.

At the time I had access to cable (it was provided for free by the apartment I lived in). I was absolutely glued to CNN the whole time. Watched every debate. Punched my pillow whenever there would be some stupid ass crap about how Gore invented the internet, or how Gore was dressed, or how bland he was, or how he was very aggressive against Bush (getting all up in that poor down to earth guys' face, how dare he!).

So when I started to see that the polls were showing that it was very close I became extremely resentful over Nader's actions. Here I was in a red state (at the time, Colorado has since gone blue; and will stay that way for the indeterminate future), my vote meant basically nothing. I saw Nader campaigning in FL literally the day before the elections. I'm sitting there, wondering why the hell he would do that, when he had zero chance of winning.

Later I've come to realize that for Nader it wasn't about winning, it wasn't about supporting his party, it was about taking the Democrats down a notch. He even used the term "cold shower" to refer to why he was acting that way.

The big thing is though that he didn't really win over Democrats. He won over independents the most. The independent left, probably, we don't have the ideological exit poll data, or at least I can't find it. The exit poll up thread said independents were the deciding factor, not Democrats. I personally think the electoral map of FL would've looked a lot different if he didn't campaign so hard there.

So it's OK that you call me "another simplistic thinker." I obviously was a lot younger then and obviously couldn't influence anything. But to say that Nader didn't act aggressively against Gore's campaign I is think wrong. You didn't say that, you seem more focused on the fact that Liberman was a shitty pick. But Gore is alive so Lieberman would've never been President, and we would not have had half the shit hit the fan as it did (I do think the mortgage crisis would've happened though because the Democrats did pass legislation that attempted to get more renters into houses; a noble goal, if the loans weren't junk as by design by the elites).

One thing is for sure I have become much more active over that time, I singlehandedly got out 10% of the votes necessary to keep Colorado blue in 2010. I campaigned vigorously for marijuana legalization in 2012. And Colorado's GOTV and registering efforts have been an enormous success. Around election time you cannot go into any store without having a GOTV person trying to get you to register. While I have not been personally involved in registering people (I just took people to polls), I did help elect the guys that have got the ball rolling.

I think you will find going forward Colorado is going to be a shining example of our Democracy.

[Zambero]

83. Nader could have, no, SHOULD have supported Gore

If Gore had consolidated those votes and won Florida plus a couple of others with an unstealable margin of victory, Nader could have claimed credit for his role in the win, and would have been in an excellent position to advocate a more progressive agenda. Instead, the scorched earth spoiler campaign he chose was enough to erode Gore's popular vote margin, setting up the worst and most blatant instance of election fraud in the history of the U.S., and alter the course of history for the worse. Nader may have once fancied himself as a savior of sorts, but instead he became an enabler for everything he ever crusaded against, no more, no less.