Why is it so important to blame Nader for the 2000 election?

[MannyGoldstein]

Seems like 90+% of DUers (at least in this poll) don't primarily blame Nader:

Gore not becoming President: whose fault?

Why does a small group of folks find it so critical to attack Nader for this disaster?

[bravenak]

1. I'd prefer this in poll form, sir.

I need to figure out who i blame the most via multiple choice polls. Put Clarence the Silent Thomas on it, please. I like blaming him.

[RobertEarl]

69. Actually, it is Left bashing

Any chance to take a shot at the Dem party left; the conservatives take it.

There are actually a few conservatives on another thread blaming the Left for the stolen 2000 election. See here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5188165

[The Magistrate]

2. Because Splinterism Is The Abiding Curse Of The Left, Sir

And people who make the perfect the enemy of the good can do the right a great service from a left purist position.

[Rex]

3. I guess they like to carry water for Karl Rove, what other conclusion is there?

OR they themselves hate liberals so much that they did not want a liberal POTUS like Gore in office (way to anti-corporation for the Third Way types) SO they voted for Bush Jr. in 2000.

Why don't you ask Third Way Manny why they love to cover up for the BFEE? Gore WON the election, but the SCOTUS decided to place Bush Jr. in office instead.

[Jim Lane]

86. Right, the only reason anyone would ever disagree with you about anything is bad motives.

I've been highly critical of Nader, and by extension of his defenders on DU, but I don't think I've ever said or implied that any of the Naderites here are secret agents for Karl Rove or some other designated villain.

You might consider whether smearing other DUers strengthens your case, or weakens it.

[Rex]

103. Rub you the wrong way did I?

If the shoe fits...please by all means wear it.

[villager]

4. It's the same small group that assiduously attacks anything left of their center/right perspective

Rather than participating in collaborative discussions here at the "Underground" about strategies to pursue in the wake of the rightwing assault on our rights, they find it more helpful to keep "hippie punching."

Real coalition-builders, that lot.

[2banon]

56. Very Astute Observation...

I completely concur. Haven't heard "hippie punching" before.. I sort of see it as Red Baiting, but it's essentially the same thing. Love your tongue in cheek "Real Coalition-builders" tag. Spot On.

[Aerows]

95. Precisely n/t

[derby378]

5. Because too many liberals are still afraid of Bush?

You got me, I dunno.

[abelenkpe]

6. To discourage people from voting for a third party or anyone considered unelectable

or too left of center by democratic leadership?

[onehandle]

7. Hey look at this poll, which is asked properly, unlike that one, just today...

SCOTUS was the final word. Nader was a third of the reason why.

Without Nader, we would have had President Gore.

Period.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025188603

This is Democratic Underground. Not Third Party Underground.

[we can do it]

62. +1

[ChisolmTrailDem]

8. It's the obligatory pre-election Nader hate fest that's as regular as the Olympics on DU. I

was living high up in a mountain valley with one very sucky country radio station, TV programming I wasn't interested in, and slow DSL internet while feeding an interest in nature and wildlife and adventure than I was in politics. So, I never learned to hate Nader.

I am wishy-washy on third-party involvement in elections, being torn between the right of people to form a political party and vote to support it and the effect it can have when it draws unhappy Democrats to its cause. But let it happen to the rethugs like it did with the Tea Party and the left is all for it.

[Maedhros]

24. Maybe the Democratic Party should worry more about why some of its members are "unhappy"

rather than berating them for being so?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

92. Exactly.

My wording was carefully selected there.

[CincyDem]

9. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

There is no question that Nadar brought many strong liberal values to the fore during the 2000 campaign but he did the country a disservice in positioning Bushco vs. Gore as "the same". His campaign message to position himself as the only true liberal in the race was an example of "perfection is the enemy of great".

The history for me is that we can't move the party from the top (a la alternative candidates at the presidential level). We need to be moving it from the bottom. Gore may not have been the perfect liberal but ask yourself the question...was he a more forward thinking, rational leader than what we got ? I said yes in 2000 and I say hell yes today.

But I still have to say to folks in important states (PA, OH, FL, etc.) who voted for Nader in important states - was it worth teaching the democratic party a lesson with your vote ? Look at the carnage (political, societal, human life) of the past 14 years brought onto this country by Buchco. With that in your viewfinder, make a convincing case that voting for Nadar was in any way shape or form a vote for progressivism.

That's the lesson for me and I hope for others.

[1StrongBlackMan]

88. +1 ...

Well stated.

[Octafish]

10. Odd that many of that small group seem to forgive the crimes of the national security state.

Whether it's Dallas or Iran-Contra or Lies for War or Selection 2000 or Lies for More War etc. etc. etc.



For some reason, SidDithers swapped out this picture with the above:



Why would SidDithers do that?

[Rex]

36. YEP.

Always the same small crowd.

[G_j]

76. are they the same folks that form the "GG" hate brigade?

seems like it, though I haven't really kept track.

[Aerows]

96. Yep

Cut from the same cloth.

[obxhead]

57. The same crowd that will vehemently declare "hope and change is working"

While only cheering BFEE policies they screamed about just 6 short years ago.

Party before policy.

[Scuba]

11. Because then they don't have to blame Gore for failing to appeal to the 50% of the electorate ...

... who didn't vote.

[frazzled]

22. But Gore got over half a million more votes than the "winner"

50,999,897 votes (or 48.4%) to Bush's 50,456,002 (or 47.9%). That's a difference of 543,895 votes, no small potatoes—indeed, it was the largest national margin ever. If the 2.74% of the vote Nader got had gone to Gore, it would have been a solid majority of the nation. D'oh. If a mere 544 of the 97,000 votes Nader got in Florida had gone to Gore, Gore would have been president. This, my friend, is the definition of "spoiler."

But more important: getting a majority, as opposed to a plurality of the votes in an election is no measure of anything. Bill Clinton won the presidency both times without winning 50% of the electorate— 43% in 1992 (far less than Gore got) and 49.2 in 1996).

Getting 50% of the electorate ... what does that have to do with the price of eggs in a three-way race? He would have gotten it, had Nader not run, and had Florida not been a hotbed of deceit, aided and abetted by Nader's spoiler campaign. I can't understand what people don't "get" about this. It's just the facts, m'aam.

[Scuba]

30. If Gore won, why blame Nader? Blame the electoral college. Blame the BFEE and the SCOTUS.

But there were tens of millions of voters out there just waiting for a candidate to appeal to them, and no one bothered. Blame Gore for that.

[frazzled]

33. Don't be naive

and don't be coy, and don't be theoretical. The facts are: the electoral college was and remains the system, and you have to deal with it and make decisions within that framework; a third-party vote in Florida allowed the what would not have been a close vote there to become contested; and this latter event never could have been pulled off had Nader not run.

Nader's run was stupid: there was no way he could win, and he couldn't even influence the discussion (he didn't have sufficient standing in the polls to qualify: rules that were in place long before he ran). He should have pulled out.

People who voted for Nader were like my naive, then 19-year-old niece, and others easily swayed by faux idealism. She learned her lesson, why can't you? Were 8 years of Bush not enough for you?

There is a difference between parties, and candidates: and anyone who tells you differently is a charlatan out for their own purposes.

[Scuba]

45. I'm hardly naive, more like calloused ...

The two parties are different, but not nearly different enough. Again, there were about 100,000,000 people who could have voted and did not. That's way, way more than Ralphie unfortunately bled off from Gore.

To ignore them and the difference they could have made is naive, or perhaps corrupt.

[frazzled]

50. You're dealing in alternate universes again.

The number of people who vote (which is pretty consistent) is the number of people who vote. You have to deal with that reality and act accordingly. It has nothing to do with anything. If the Goddess Athena had descended to earth and bestowed a magic potion on Gore, he would have "won," too.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything--I'm not so naive to think that is possible (and by the same token, there's no way in hell you're convincing me of anything). But I would love to know why you'd be supporting someone with such a, frankly, dubious, self-interested record as Ralph Nader has over the past decade and a half, working with the Norquists and the hedge funds to protect his own personal investments (which he's admitted). Why is any of this worth discussing now? Except to serve as a parable lest people be stupid enough to fall for some third-party charlatan again.

Lastly, why would anyone vote for a Nader knowing he can't win and that it could possibly mean the election of a truly bad candidate? To make yourself feel "better"? I sure wouldn't have felt better if I'd done that.

[Scuba]

72. Please link to any post of mine that supported Nader. Doesn't even have to be this thread.

Your argument that not even one of those 100 million would vote even if offered the kinds of progressive policies that used to differentiate the Democratic Party from the others is a major fail.

[leftstreet]

79. AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO BLAME NAFTA !!

LABOR sat out the election

Ask Gore why

[Scuba]

97. Yep.

[Oakenshield]

12. I haven't looked into the history of the small group you mentioned but...

I haven't looked into the history of the small group you mentioned but I'd hazard a guess its comprised of people who are more concerned with winning elections than fighting our party's movement towards the right. And if we get a pseudo-Democrat who supports charter schools, free trade and domestic surveillance...well hey...at least it isn't a Republican.

[jeff47]

13. Rage.

They're enraged by the recent SCOTUS decisions. Those decisions are due to W's appointees, triggering their rage at W. One of the puzzle pieces that caused W to become president was Nader. But Nader wasn't "caused" by someone else, so the rage stops there.

Add in the people reacting to the Clinton-coronation threads by saying they won't vote, and it looks like a repeat of 2000. So they're expressing their rage.

[thucythucy]

104. Excellent response. Nt.

[onehandle]

14. Why is it so important to defend him?

Third party spoiler.

Ross Perot fan too?

[Skittles]

15. BECAUSE

while ultimately it was the Supreme Court who installed that lying, warmongering nitwit piece of SHIT into the White House, Nader very much helped - it is hard not to imagine the different scenario if Nader's ego had not been a factor in 2000.

[bettyellen]

29. Should we kick your NSA loving, Greenwald hating, social justice loving ass? Because if you're not

with the spoilers, you want the govt to spy on us and corporations to decide your health care!
Oh wait, they are already doing that.

[Puzzledtraveller]

41. ^^winner^^

[leftstreet]

53. 'mythopedias' !!

Indeed

[conservaphobe]

17. Why is it so important to defend his honor?

He's not one of us.

[Oakenshield]

18. He helped put seatbelts in the automobile.

He stood for protecting the average American from the predations of corporate greed. Yes, he isn't a Democrat but he's certainly due some respect.

[conservaphobe]

20. And by running for President, he turned the nation over to the predations of corporate greed.

No amount of seatbelts in the world can repair his legacy.

[Oakenshield]

23. Not buying that story.

The election was stolen by a criminally partisan Supreme Court. I refuse to blame Nader for trying to compete in the democratic process. If Gore wanted Nader's votes, he should have ran a better campaign. End of story.

[conservaphobe]

25. Wouldn't have even needed the Supreme Court if Nader had stayed the fuck out of the way.

But his fans know that.

[Oakenshield]

26. This is a democratic republic.

People get to vote for who they please. If you have a problem with that, I'm sure there's a country out there that can oblige you.

[Rex]

39. This is odd behavior imo...DEMS that hate democracy?

At one time I only thought Repukes were that narrowminded...but alas we have them in our own party too.

Of course Al Gore WON the election...the fact that some here LOVE to carry water for the GOP (by NEVER talking about their part in this) is telling imo.

[Oakenshield]

55. It's tribal mentality.

Regardless of party, it's an ugly thing to see. Cheers.

[Rex]

64. Well it is all the usual suspects.

Year after year, SSDD with them. Cheers.

[Bobbie Jo]

46. And this is

Democratic Underground. Most certainly people get to vote for who they please, but they don't get to push their third party advocacy here.

If you have a problem with that, I'm sure there's a political forum out there that can oblige you.

[Oakenshield]

48. So, refusing to hop onto the "Blame Nader!" bandwagon is me advocating for third party?

I'll have to keep that in mind.

[Bobbie Jo]

54. So, criticizing Nader's impact

on the ultimate outcome of the election is restricting one's right to vote for the candidate of their choice?

Yeah, I didn't think so either.

[Oakenshield]

66. I don't particularly care if you disagree.

Fact of the matter is you people blame Nader for reaching out to some people better than Gore did, and instead of being fair minded people and acknowledging Gore's failure in that regard..you'd rather pout and divert blame from the Supreme Court.

[Bobbie Jo]

74. Whatever

Your "go look elsewhere" argument was off base, so I called you in it.

Gore had his own issues, but your guy was most certainly a contributing factor in this massive clusterfuck.

"You people?" Really?

[Oakenshield]

89. Except it wasn't off-base.

He blames Nader for participating, and didn't want to look at the fact that by saying Nader should have "gotten out of the way" he was in fact limiting the choice of the voter. In short, he didn't really give much of a damn about the Democratic process. I'd reckon you don't either, or else you would abandon your senseless "criticism" that Nader was a contributing factor.

And by "you people" I am referring to ultra-partisan types who care more about defending the party rather than anything to do with the actual politics of the matter.

[Bobbie Jo]

98. Nader was a spoiler.

Period. Syphoning votes was his singular purpose.

And holy crap, partisanship - on a partisan board? Go figure.

[Oakenshield]

99. You are demonstrably wrong.

An excerpt from Journalist Tony Schinella, http://politizine.blogspot.com/2004/02/debunking-myth-ralph-nader-didnt-cost.html


"In Florida, CNN's exit polling showed Nader taking the same amount of votes from both Republicans and Democrats: 1 percent. Nader also took 4 percent of the independent vote. At the same time, 13 percent of registered Democrats voted for Bush! Again, Gore couldn't hold his own base and because of this, he lost. The Democrats don't say one word about the fact that 13 percent of their own party members voted for Bush.
On the ideological front, 3 percent of Nader's vote identified themselves as "liberal," while 2 percent called themselves "moderate" and 1 percent called themselves "conservatives." An even split: 6 to 6.
When asked who they voted for in 1996, 1 percent of Nader's voters said they voted for Bill Clinton, 1 percent said they voted for Bob Dole, and 10 percent said they voted for Ross Perot."

And here's the raw Florida exit poll data.

http://www.vrdc.cornell.edu/info4470/projects/~bap63/pdf/florida2000.pdf

[jeff47]

105. The way you can tell that analysis is bullshit

Is they mention this:

At the same time, 13 percent of registered Democrats voted for Bush!

And leave out how many registered Republicans voted for Gore.

Why'd they do that? Because a few thousand more Republicans voted for Gore, than Democrats voted for Bush.

[Oakenshield]

108. That 13% does however demonstrate just how weak Gore's campaign was.

If he couldn't hold onto 13 percent of his own party's votes, how the hell can we get so bent out of shape over Nader's 1 percent? The LAST person we should be blaming for 2000 is Nader. First and foremost we should blame the Supreme Court. If that's not enough, then blame Gore for running a bad campaign. To blame Nader for participating in the democratic process is just senseless.

[bettyellen]

114. "you people"? You mean the ones actually very pissed at SCROTUS right now?

I'm giving the side eye to anyone NOT pissed at those judges.
There's way too much of his "You people" crap here these days.

[Oakenshield]

117. And where was I trying to downplay the guilt of the Supreme Court?

If anything, it's those of us who aren't looking to blame Nader who are the most angry with the Supreme Court. They were ultimately the ones who cheated Gore after all.

[GeorgeGist]

109. The real elephant in the room that was responsible for Gore's defeat ...

was Bill Clinton.

[YoungDemCA]

42. He wasn't "trying to compete in the democratic process"

If that was the case, why was he fixated on Florida?

[Oakenshield]

51. So now he's a trojan horse?

What other insinuations have you collected I wonder, in your fevered attempts to avoid blaming Gore for how he failed to appeal to the men and women who ultimately voted for Nader?

[tk2kewl]

19. how is not blaming Nader the same as defending his honor?

[conservaphobe]

21. Simply not blaming him is not defending him.

Attacking or being compelled to respond to those who feel he spoiled the election (which he did) is defending his honor.

[Doctor_J]

63. So the realists should just stay out of all the Nader-bashing threads that keep appearing?

why?

[hrmjustin]

27. Nader was not the sole reason and if people are saying he is the sole reason Gore lost they are

wrong. But Nader was a contributing factor.

[LordGlenconner]

70. Agreed

I wonder why some are so desperate to believe otherwise.

[Maedhros]

28. It's important to blame Nader, because otherwise we'd have to look at the warts on our own Party.

As a bonus, blaming Nader also has the effect of demonizing the Left.

[RufusTFirefly]

85. ^^ THIS!!! ^^ It's a two-fer!!

Identifying faults and working to fix them is a sign of growth and maturity.

The dominant corporate wing of the Democratic Party wants left-wing votes, but it wants nothing to do with left-wing policies as they tend to scare away major donors. Before Nader ran, the corporate Democrats could be smug and arrogant, knowing full well that liberals really had no alternative.

[Maedhros]

91. Their actions are sending a loud and clear message that they DON'T WANT votes from the Left.[n/t]

[RufusTFirefly]

94. Well, that would be the common sense conclusion

But when traditional Democratic voting blocs get fed up with being ignored or outright abused and either stay home or vote for a third-party candidate as a protest, the corporate Democrats react in shock and dismay: "Why do they hate us??!!"


"We're shocked. And stunned."

[HooptieWagon]

31. It's the HillaryBots...

...trying to woo leftist voters by clubbing them over the head. It'll backfire... bullying the left will ensure they won't support Hillary. Leftist voters will reject the authoritarianism tactics the corporatist fascition embraces.

[gcomeau]

32. Because people apparently haven't learned the lesson yet.

And lots of people being pissed at the Supreme Court doesn't negate the fact that the Supreme court would NEVER HAVE BEEN IN PLAY AT ALL in that election if it wasn't for Nader. So all those people in that poll pissed at the fact that the Court made that decision? They can thank Nader for putting the decision in their hands in the first place.

[JoeyT]

35. Because the fault can't be with us.

We've gotta find some outsider to point the blame at, no matter how far we have to stretch to do so. Especially if we can blame the left.

If Hillary doesn't get her turn in 2016, look for more shrieking about how awful the left is for not electing her by the same people that are currently insisting she has a 196.8% approval rating among liberals.

[betterdemsonly]

37. That is why I wish Warren would commit to running already

If we just had a non-dlc candidate the fight would be over and if they kept it up it would be obvious they were shit stirrers.

[YoungDemCA]

38. If the term "Professional Leftist" ever applied to anyone...

..it would apply to Ralph Nader.

[Orsino]

40. To stamp out dissent against Clinton.

Because surely, Comrade, you do not want Jones back.

[DanTex]

43. Primarily because we don't want to lose another big election because of people who

care more about ideological purity than they do about what actually happens in the world.

Most DUers seem to understand that without Nader, Gore would have been president.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025188603

Which means, you know, no Iraq War, and no tax cuts for the rich, etc. It's important to remind people that throwing away their vote for some ideological crusade to nowhere actually has real-life consequences.

[YoungDemCA]

49. Some people are more concerned with being self-righteous than with the real world

Speaking of the real world...the Republicans will almost certainly keep the House this year, and may very will win the Senate. And in 2016, they may even very well win the Presidency, if we're not vigilant as Democrats against them. That will have quantifiable, tangible, negative consequences for millions of Americans.

If only the purists and the "pox on both their houses" crowd were more constructive in their criticism of Democrats, and actually contributed to helping get Democrats elected, rather than throwing their votes away on Greens, etc, (or worse, not voting at all).

There's a lot of energy here, and anger at the Right in this country. It's up to us as informed Democrats and progressive activists to channel that anger into positive change.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Because the establishment parties fear the left.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi

[genwah]

47. Why worry or work for November, when we can rehash the past? It's not like we need to GOTV...

[LWolf]

52. Unfortunately,

those who will work to nominate, elect, support, and defend a neo-liberal already smell the blood in the water for '16 and are desperately setting up the scapegoats for '16.

Just in case anybody thinks about throwing GE votes somewhere other than the neo-liberal candidate they crowned.

[RufusTFirefly]

58. Because their recycled Snowden smears were getting old??

There is an intense desire among a select few to avoid facing daunting problems and inconvenient truths by blaming a person or group, whether they deserve it or not.

Right-wingers take a similar approach with "illegals." Before that, they did it with "welfare queens."

For corporate Democrats, Ralph Nader is the bête noire du jour.

Curiously enough, they are following in the footsteps of the notorious Powell Memo, the detailed blueprint for a conservative takeover that was written in 1971 by future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell. Like PNAC's manifesto, the memo proved prescient. Here are some excerpts (I also posted on this topic here):

Under our constitutional system, especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.

...Perhaps the single most effective antagonist of American business is Ralph Nader, who — thanks largely to the media — has become a legend in his own time and an idol of millions of Americans.

...While neither responsible business interests, nor the United States Chamber of Commerce, would engage in the irresponsible tactics of some pressure groups, it is essential that spokesmen for the enterprise system — at all levels and at every opportunity — be far more aggressive than in the past.

There should be no hesitation to attack the Naders, the Marcuses and others who openly seek destruction of the system. There should not be the slightest hesitation to press vigorously in all political arenas for support of the enterprise system. Nor should there be reluctance to penalize politically those who oppose it.

... It is time for American business — which has demonstrated the greatest capacity in all history to produce and to influence consumer decisions — to apply their great talents vigorously to the preservation of the system itself.

As history has shown us again and again, scapegoating has a tendency to turn out very badly.

[Doctor_J]

61. Does seem to be the exact same "group"

good catch

[QC]

102. Bingo. n/t

[xchrom]

59. cause they're liars -- promoting a false meme

so they can bash 'leftists'.

[bowens43]

67. nonsense, I'm a leftist, Nader put bush in the oval office. that's fact not opinion.

the naderites are off their rockers

[Doctor_J]

60. There have been about 15 Nader threads started since Monday

Nader Derangement Syndrome seems to be epidemic.

[bowens43]

65. because it's his fault?

[MohRokTah]

68. Because if leftist purists continue to demand ideological purity in national elections...

it serves no other purpose than to push the party to the right in order to find the votes to make up for the fact that it cannot and will never run somebody that meets all of their purist demands.

We saw that demonstrated in the real world quite starkly after Gore lost. The ideological purists became unreliable voters. The party moved right.

The more the purists demand, the less likely they are to get it. The party will never cater to unreliable voters.

You're beginning to see the same sort of unreliability on the right with the teabaggers. The GOP is beginning to wake up to the fact that the teabaggers are becoming unreliable, and thus they are being pushed away. If history is ay clue, should the GOP lose seats in the House and fail to pick up control of the Senate, the GOP may actually be forced to the left in order to pick up the votes they are losing from unreliable teabagging voters. It will require a further loss in 2016 to solidify the required political movement, though.

[winter is coming]

78. "Ideological purity" and "pragmatist" are bullshit memes used to dismiss the left.

If the party is afraid of losing the votes of the left, they've got two options: move to the right, to make up for the loss, or move back to the left to retain and regain the support of people who've voted for them in the past. Which makes more sense... go after someone who's never voted for you or go after someone who always used to vote for you before you changed positions?

Our party started shifting to the right long before 2000. You want "reliable" voters? Represent your voters' interests and govern from the same positions you campaign on. Saying one thing and doing another (or doing nothing) is a surefire way to dampen enthusiasm.

[MohRokTah]

110. You are WAY off base.

Everything you just posted only serves to demonstrate my point exactly.

[winter is coming]

113. LOL. n/t

[TheNutcracker]

71. We should have 15 parties running like Austrailia! Harder to cheat.

[Electric Monk]

75. Also, have proportional representation, not first past the post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

[morningfog]

73. Simple: to support the false illusion of choice.

They want to limit democracy to 2 choices. That is not true democracy. They want to quash any expansion of the debate.

Notice it is party loyalist, party liners and party employees who are he biggest Nader obsessed (for 14 fucking years!). They want it to be Dem v. Rep only. They want to legitimize bush to keep the strict dichotomy frame.

[SidDithers]

77. Why is it so important to absolve Nader for his role in 2000 election?...

Why does a small group of folks find it so important to post thread after thread after thread defending Nader?



Sid

[morningfog]

80. The acted legally. Those who voted for him did too.

Those who voted for Gore had it stolen by the Supreme Court. It was an illegal act, unless you agree with the decision in Bush v. Gore.

I don't care about defending Nader, he's an ass. I just loathe that intellectually lazy position that absolves Bush crimes and the theft.

[bettyellen]

111. legally yes- but in the nations best interest? Only in their dreams. Idiotic thing to do in a swing

state.

[JEB]

81. How many Nader voters would have gone for Gore if

Gore had not picked the rat fucker as a running mate?

[betterdemsonly]

84. I suspect not many

I do think many of Nader's voters were progressive Dems and I believe had the election been less close it never would have been left up the courts, but I think the Democrats turned a lot of people off, and that is always on the candidates, not the voters.

[reddread]

82. to protect the reputation of the Bush family

Jeb enablers.

[pnwmom]

90. Because of his 97,488 Florida votes. And his lies about Gore being the same as Bush. n/t

[vi5]

93. Because then the people who blame him...

Won't have to look at their own culpability or the culpability of the Democratic party and it's leadership for pushing away and/or ignoring and/or shitting on their base of voters.

Much easier to blame Nader than it is to blame Gore, or Lieberman, or Clinton, or Obama or any of the other shining lights of the Democratic party who have willingly and knowingly pushed the Democratic party to the right and into the arms of corporate America.

[Inkfreak]

100. It gets a response here. (nt)

[Turbineguy]

101. That way we don't have to fix the real problem:

The number of idiots who voted for Bush.

[Rex]

106. And why all the usual suspects bringing it up 14 years later?

Oh right...election in November...their agenda has always been about dividing us up and it seems to be SSDD, SSDM, SSDY.

[BainsBane]

107. It's not

People just like to create us vs. them sorts of fights. It's old news and ridiculous.

[treestar]

112. This debate has been going on for 14 years

Why would it stop now?

[flvegan]

115. Because idiots. n/t

[Rstrstx]

116. Why no mention of Pat Buchanan?

He got thousands of suspect votes that were surely meant for Gore in Palm Beach County; that alone would have made the difference in FL. Or what if they had decided not to use the butterfly (effect) ballot?

Not that I have any love of Nader, I think he's (still) oblivious and unrepentant. His abstention unquestionably would have given Gore more than enough votes, just as if Perot had not stayed in the '92 and '96 campaigns those outcomes may have been different.

Really all of this is futile, you can't go back and predict what would have happened in '04 or '08, things might look very different than today (probably better but no guarantees, what if Gore had done poorly and then lost in '04? Would Iraq have come 4 years later?)