Nader DID have a hand in electing Bush...but forget about Florida.

[Drunken Irishman]

People get too caught up on Florida. Sure, there was some awful shenanigans down there, and you could certainly make the case the state was stolen from Gore, but Nader's biggest influence actually came in the NE in the traditional swing state New Hampshire.

Bush beat Gore there by only 7,211 votes. Nader won 22,198 votes - taking a great deal away from Gore in a state, had Gore won, would have made Florida moot.

Nader won a great deal of these votes by running a deceptive campaign, suggesting there was little difference between Gore & Bush. I think, even the most hardcore Nader supporters, will concede that, yes, there was a dramatic amount of difference between the two.

I don't fault Nader for running. I do fault him, and the media, for wrongly smearing Gore in an extremely important election. In 2000, the narrative was quite clear: a vote for Bush OR Gore would be the status quo. That's what Bush wanted. He wanted the idea out there that he was part of the status quo because, at the time, the status quo was good because America seemed to be doing good. We weren't at war. The Cold War was over. The economy was growing. The deficit was non-existent. Crime was low. The status quo is what gave Bush cover and he certainly leveraged Nader's linking him to it because it made him what he so tried to display - a moderate.

Bush wanted the country to look at him as a moderate conservative, someone who would not rock the boat too much and only marginally shift this country away from the prosperity seen under the Clinton-Gore days. After all, there wasn't a terrorist bogeyman out there to run against or an economic crisis to add fuel to your campaign - he needed to convince Americans that he would be an extension of that growth instead of the opposition to it. Nader happily helped him convince people of this by flatly saying he and Gore were two peas from the same pod.

It worked. Not only was turnout pretty abysmal for such a close election (though up from 1996 - down from 1992 and 2004 and 2008 and even 2012, though), voters felt comfortable throwing their support behind Nader because, at the end of the day, what did it matter?

Come to find out, it mattered a lot.

Does Nader deserve all the blame? No. Gore ran a piss-poor campaign for much of 2000. But to say he's blameless is revisionist history at its best. Nader appeased the Republicans to divide the left. It worked for both sides and screwed the country over in the process.

[MADem]

1. Gee where have we heard that "No difference" bullshit before?

Why ... right here at DEMOCRATIC Underground!

And from the same accusatory crew, beating the same accusatory drum...

They're the ones who claim that everyone ELSE is getting paid to tout a POV! The nerve of DEMOCRATS to support DEMOCRATS on a DEMOCRATIC message board, surely they must be "paid" to do such a thing!



I'll tell ya, if the "No Difference" crowd ARE getting paid, they aren't getting paid enough, or they suck at their job. All they do is make me more determined to GOTV!

[Cha]

29. It's really pathetic if someone can't "see the difference between Dems and repubs in this

day and kochbagger age. It could only be because they don't want to.

[MADem]

34. Or... or... or...

They're PAID posters!!!

That's the accusation I hear all the time from the Purity "Pick a Loser" Police! If you like the POTUS, you must be PAID....because in their world, none of us voted for him, apparently!

Gotta wonder about that stuff--after all, the guy with the most money in the game is that Koch dipshit--he could afford to pay a whole army of penny a word "Ralph Nader isn't too old" keyboard bangers! And honestly, given the quality (or lack thereof) of their arguments, it wouldn't surprise me at all if we've got a few of those snuggled up in here. They may not be obvious, but they aren't talented!

[Cha]

40. Maybe those accusing others of being "paid posters" are the

the ones who are paid. Like the rw always accusing Dems of what they're doing right out in the open.

[joshcryer]

2. SCOTUS > Media > Katherine Harris > Nader > Gore

Gore always gets the most blame, but people really don't remember how badly the media treated him.

The thing is Nader is supposed to be an ally, but he stabbed the moderates or center left in the back.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. Meh. SCOTUS > Harris > Gore > Gore's advisors > Dems voting for Bush > Media > Nader

You could just as easily say the 'moderates or center left' stabbed the left in the back. Gore had plenty of time to throw a bone to the left while campaigning, to win over would-be Nader voters. But for some reason, he charged the center and waited til after the elections to show his climate passions.

If HRC doesn't want to repeat the 2000 mistakes, she could come out right now and say she'd kill KXL and TPP if she gets in office. Do that and she'll win 99.9999% of would-be defectors on the left.

[joshcryer]

19. There won't be a back stabbing spoiler to worry about.

So there will be little pandering to the left, mostly social issues, but only safe polling, like marijuana, gay marriage, etc.

Your focus on Gore as a failure means you bought the RW narrative hook line and sinker. Go read the Daily Howler.

FYI, his climate solutions are middle of the road. Nader criticized Earth in the Balance because it wasn't ambitious enough. Of course, "middle of the road" is the only attainable solution. Nader only offered fantasy solutions. I am very critical of Gore and his stance on cap and trade and offsets. Fee and dividend is the liberal solution.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

25. My 'focus on Gore as a failure'

is a lot more general that that. Barring causes of outright fraud (vote tampering, 'lost votes', voter caging and purging) I always blame the candidate themselves. It's your job as a candidate to win more voters than the other guys. If you can't figure out how to do that, it's your own fault. And that applies to every losing candidate out there, not just Gore.

[joshcryer]

84. Would it be that we lived in that world.

Where the fairness doctrine was the law of the land, where all elections were publicly funded, and where we had approval voting (and no electoral college), all elections were standardized and all counts were paper ballots.

Instead Gore had to contend with a media that was hostile, openly so, to the point where even journalists in the same room with him would laugh at him derisively and call him a liar behind his back. Gore had to contend with private pro-corporate elections where if he didn't raise enough money from the right power brokers, also telling those brokers what they wanted to hear. Instead Gore had to contend with a plurality first past the vote system which results in the guy getting the most votes actually "losing." Would it be that elections were standardized so we couldn't have Katherine Harris types removing hundreds of thousands of people from voter rolls, refusing to do a statewide recount at the whims of the Bush's.

But we don't live in that world. In the world we live in Nader contributed to Bush's theft of the White House.

[MADem]

35. I agree with your assessment. nt

[Cha]

44. Exactly, josh.. bought the rw meme hook line and bloody sinker.

[jeff47]

56. Psssst. More R's voted for Gore than D's voted for Bush

(At least if you're talking about Florida)

[HooptieWagon]

61. Here in Fla...

about 15X as many conservative Dems voted for Bush, as liberal Dems voted for Nader. If people are gonna cast asperagus and point fingers, it seems the proper target is conservative Dems.

[Cha]

41. I remember how bad the US media wanted fucking bush.. they were BLAMING Gore for leaking

fucking bush's DUI in Maine.. for cris sake.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. Are you claiming people in New Hampshire are stupid?

Nader won a great deal of these votes by running a deceptive campaign, suggesting there was little difference between Gore & Bush. I think, even the most hardcore Nader supporters, will concede that, yes, there was a dramatic amount of difference between the two.

If even the most hardcore supporters will 'concede a dramatic difference', than how are we to assume voters actually believed such, especially when said voters had months of television ads proclaiming the differences between the two? And how was Gore's campaign so godawful that it couldn't counter a single soundbite of 'not a dime's difference' between Gore and Bush?

Candidates will say anything and everything. A good candidate, a successful candidate, will provide effective counters to whatever is said about them by anyone. As you note at the end "Gore ran a piss-poor campaign for much of 2000."

Enough scapegoating in a race 14 years ago. It changes absolutely nothing now - if a centrist candidate manages to lose again in 2016, it will still be because they failed to run an effective campaign, not because some boogeyman out there is 'running a deceptive campaign'. They all do. Winners and losers alike.

[leftstreet]

8. Apparently

Good post

[JI7]

10. yes, there are stupid people in New Hampshire as there are in the rest of the country

it took people living through the BUsh disaster to see there IS a difference and that those differences matter. it doesn't mean one agrees with the democrats on everything.

[leftstreet]

13. Then are non-voters more stupider, or less stupidest, or what?

It's fascinating how the CenterCrats blame either nonvoters or independent voters, but never NEVER blame their own failed policies and/or worthless candidates

(I don't mean you personally. I mean the party and its official$)

[JI7]

16. many non voters just don't have interest in politics , some don't have time

if you ask them about candidates or policies they aren't going to know much so they their non voting doesn't have much to do with what they think about candidates or policies.

[Drunken Irishman]

18. These voters also tend to change who they vote for each election cycle.

If they vote, that is.

In 1988, they probably voted H.W. Bush. In 1992 and 1996, they voted Clinton. In 2000 and 2004, they voted Bush. In 2008 and 2012, they voted Obama.

They're all over the place.

[Drunken Irishman]

17. All NH voters? Of course not and I never said they were...

But do you not believe there are stupid people in New Hampshire? I find that most who voted Nader bought into the lie that Bush and Gore were the exact same and, "it didn't matter who you voted for, man!"

[betterdemsonly]

22. Nader said repeatedly that they differed on social issues

that don't bother corporations. At the time it was abortion and gun control. It was economic issues where they had become tweedle dee and tweedle dum. He said repeatedly that roe might get overturned in the interim, but that it would go to the states. He also said economic issues are just as important as abortion and gun control. Democrats don't have to be identical to the republicans to be failing to represent groups they had represented in the past.

[Drunken Irishman]

24. It was pretty clear what Nader's intentions were.

He wanted to link Bush and Gore as much as possible - and that's exactly what the Republicans wanted, too.

The fact is, even on economic views, Gore is dramatically different than Bush. But again, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

[Oakenshield]

4. Gore couldn't even win in his own state.

Had he managed that he'd have won. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if Gore wanted Nader's votes he should have tried harder. A lot damn harder.

[JI7]

5. Nader couldn't either and Connecticut is much more liberal than Tennessee

[Cha]

31. So? Tennessee? We're talking about Nader and New Hampshire here.. and Florida. Swing States.

[Oakenshield]

51. So...

If he had just won his own state, Florida's outcome would have been irrelevant. But go ahead, keep on using Nader as a scapegoat.

[Cha]

57. "If" Could Should Woulda.. IF nader hadn't been such a lying asshole Gore would have Won with NH.

Tennessee is a freaking Red State.

[Oakenshield]

62. People lie and make sensationalist claims during campaign season? Who'd have thought?

Gore would have won if he hadn't run a shit campaign. Period.

[liberalmuse]

6. I think the moral of this story is...

purists do more harm than good. We've seen examples of this in history over and over and over again. Human evolution has been a mostly unpleasant exercise, of which the purists are a vital part. Purists would rather cut off their own hand than do anything they perceive would compromise their values. As a result, most people will suffer and the purists will continue to be pure, basking in their own fucking purity while others are wondering why this shit continues to happen again and again. Just a few people willing to compromise are the ones who truly change the world for the better.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. Replace 'purists' with 'centrists' and I'll agree with you.

Because there are no purists in the American left. Just people slightly to the left of you.

[Cha]

36. Nader was a Liar..and he did an incalculable amount of harm in 2000 with his stupid TweedleDum &

TweedleDee spiel.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

38. Pretty much every politician is a liar.

And with the purist centrism on offer from Gore, if Nader hadn't gotten those votes, I imagine most of them would have gone to Anderson, Browne, Hagelin, etc. People who were upset with Gore's lack of any care at all for the issues on the far left weren't going to turn around and vote for him simply because Nader wasn't in the running.

[Cha]

48. That's a silly argument.. nader gets a pass because you think "nearly every politician is a liar"..

I call bullshit.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

52. call whatever you want.

I'm not 'giving him a pass'. He's a total ass, and acted like a spoiled brat after the election.

But he's merely a useful scapegoat for people who want to continue to offer up centrist candidate after centrist candidate, and blame the left whenever they lose.

[Cha]

55. Yeah, because it is bs..& you're acting like a freaking pretzel twisting in the wind for nader lol

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

58. Whatever you want to think is fine.

Cause I don't really care what you think.

I've been consistent all along. Hell, if you wanted, you could go dig up posts of me calling Nader an ass over on Daily Kos for years.

But whatever. Continue to offer up triangulating crappy centrist candidates, then whine about folks on the left when you lose.

I'd rather see candidates offered up who can enthuse the base and win, myself.

[JI7]

12. the thing is i don't even think they are purists, i don't think some just enjoy

the feeling of superiority and lecturing others .

it's strange how some look at politics and talk about voting their conscience as if politics is some religion.

[betterdemsonly]

20. How would you react if Obama decided to just allow the hobby lobby thing

go without any effort to overturn it. He could also go along with with Rick Warren's effort to exempt religious employers from having to comply with laws against discriminating against gays. That is very bipartisan and would definitely diffuse culture war tensions? Heck he do the same thing with the entire abortion issue, presuming the courts overturn Roe.

If you just bank on women who die of coathangers having their deaths listed for other causes, public tension is still ratcheted down. Working class women are experiencing shorter life expentancies anyway from low wages and lack of health care.

If you got mad about this, would we be right to call you a self righteous purist? Because that is the reasoning Obama has used to abandon Labor and the Teachers.

[JI7]

23. if i felt that way i would not be on this site which supports democrats

[betterdemsonly]

26. Seriously??? After repeately bludgeoning Nader voters over Roe

You are saying that if Obama abandoned Roe for the sake of bipartisanship, you wouldn't mind and wouldn't be a good dem if you did?

Have I misunderstood you?

That is shocking!

[JI7]

28. huh ? i'm a democrat, this is a site that supports Democrats , why would i be on this site

if i thought someone else was better ?

[betterdemsonly]

32. Just because you think someone else is better doesn't mean you

aren't a democrat anymore. Democrats traditionally stood for certain things. Does it matter to you whether the dems stand for anything, or do you just think there is some magical reason to support them? I am just trying to understand your motivation. I thought you had a bug about Roe and Hobby Lobby, but it seems you are a hyper partisan of some kind.

Also we have traditionally had primaries, so even though I don't like dlcers I can fight for someone who is a more traditional democrat in the primaries.

[JI7]

43. you don't understand why someone who is a democrat would come on a democratic supporting site ?

[betterdemsonly]

46. Meaning, you would support Democrats if they abandoned Roe? n/t

[JI7]

49. i wouldn't be here if they did

[Armstead]

37. Funny, I fel the same way about partisan purists

and your little scolding is a good example of that.

What the hell is a "purist" anyway? How do you separate that from having principles?

Is the only "non-purist" some fat slug who sits on his couch and cares about nothing and has no beliefs in anything?

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. "Nader appeased the Republicans to divide the left". And he's still at it.

[Armstead]

33. And a lot of Democrats keep adding to the divide by endlessly harping on this....

[Tarheel_Dem]

80. And who are we "dividing" from? Certainly not folks with our interests at heart.

So I vote for "harping" infinitum.

[Armstead]

86. Harpong from lot of people who....

are liberals who support the basic principles the Democratic Party claims to stand for, and often support the Democratic Party, but are extremely frustrated by its drift to the same corporate conservatism that Republicans represent on issues of money and power.

More openess to discussions of this, and willingness to look for a middle ground on issues of corporate power would add to the enthusiasm and vote totals of Democrats.

[Tarheel_Dem]

89. Yeah. So you say. Of course, I'm not buying it. There are folks like Nader & his ilk...

who spend all their time trashing Dem leadership, and have the gall to feign outrage when they're called on it. Among this group, there is definitely a divide & conquer strategy at play. They have the misguided notion that if they can burn down the Democratic party, some uber liberal phoenix party will rise from the ashes.

It's okay to be dissatisfied with the Democratic Party, but Dems should make no mistake, they are not allies, and should be treated with the same contempt as any other garden variety teabagger.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

14. This

"Nader won a great deal of these votes by running a deceptive campaign, suggesting there was little difference between Gore & Bush. I think, even the most hardcore Nader supporters, will concede that, yes, there was a dramatic amount of difference between the two."

[betterdemsonly]

15. The left was divided already. See todays thread on Howard Hawkins

defense of teachers unions. Hawkins is the green candidate for governor of NY. The democrats have abandoned teachers and the public schools and are going to lose voters on those kinds of issues. That is not a problem created by Nader or the Greens.

Nader's plan was to get 10% of the vote so the Greens could get matching funds. Nader/The Greens presumes the Republicans are dying so he would take those voters the Democrats aren't interested in anymore. He didn't want to punish the dems. Just wanted to build a new party, with people who are no longer represented in the American political system. Teachers are a good example of this.

I agree with that assessment, but there is no way to make them die quickly because of the corporate media. It will be a slow death, but that means opportunity for another second party will open up eventually, particularly in places where there are hardly any gop left, like New York and the Seattle.

Nader made some strategic mistakes, but his followers had real discontents. Abortion isn't the only issue we should care about.

[wryter2000]

21. Sadly, that's not the case

" I think, even the most hardcore Nader supporters, will concede that, yes, there was a dramatic amount of difference between the two. "

And there are many DUers who will tell you Obama is as bad as Bush.

[tritsofme]

27. I'm not quite sure why the Nader apologists feel they must deny this simple truth.

To absolve Nader of all blame for 2000 is just silly.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

42. All?

Yeah, that's pretty much the amount of blame the centrists want to assign to him.

You NEVER hear the centrists talking about the far greater number of Florida Dems who voted for Bush. Just endless boogeyman threads about Nader. The Dems ran a candidate so poor he couldn't win his home state, and droves of Dem party voters abandoned him in key states to vote for the Republican because he was trying the old Clinton triangulation without the Clinton charisma.

Heck, the pubs barely needed to have stacked the deck with voter purges and SCotUS to take Florida away. And if Nader hadn't even existed, they'd have just screwed with the vote counts that little bit more to maintain the same effect.

[tritsofme]

59. As the OP notes, Florida wouldn't have mattered if Gore carried NH.

Where Nader also played a big role. There were a lot of factors that lead to Gore's ultimate defeat, but it I don't see the harm in pointing out that absent Nader's candidacy, it is likely that Gore would have prevailed.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

60. 'likely' is an interesting word.

And unproveable.

I'd like the Democratic party to learn a lesson from 2000. Don't ignore the left. If you're going to continue running centrist candidates, at least have them swing hard left on one issue. Enthuse what should be Dem voters, rather than toss them aside to vote for third partiers.

Unfortunately, what seems to have been 'learned' is 'we can ignore the left if there is no major third party spoiler candidate running'. I think that's a loser of a lesson.

[Armstead]

30. Arrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh

What, is there something in the water that is causing this mass hallucination that it's 2001?

[sabbat hunter]

39. If gore had

won his home state of TN, he would have been president, and Florida would have been moot.

If you don't win your home state, you don't win the presidential election. Only 3 presidents have won, despite losing their home state, Woodrow Wilson, Richard Nixon and Polk. (that means their state of residence, not their state of birth).

Wilson lost NJ in 1916 (won it in 1912) Nixon lost California in 1968 (won it in 1972) and Polk lost TN.

[JI7]

45. yeah, but Gore did better in tn than Nader did in his home state of connecticut

[laundry_queen]

78. So?

Has a third party candidate ever won his home state?

Nevermind. Looked it up. It has happened, but it's rare. And no third party candidate since '68 has won any state, let alone their own.

[Cha]

53. So? Tennessee wasn't a swing state. A Democratic candidate didn't win in fucking rw Tennessee..

boo hoo. Whereas Nader was campaigning like a TweedleDum&Dee on steroids in Swing States.

[Uncle Joe]

47. I agree with your OP with the exception that Gore ran a piss poor campaign, if the corporate media

Last edited Fri Jul 4, 2014, 07:14 PM - Edit history (2)

is bent on smearing you and it definitely was in 1998-2000, while the Internet was still in it's infancy, then running a perceived "good campaign" becomes next to impossible.

But despite the overwhelming headwinds of dealing with Bush's "compassionate conservatism" label, Nader's linking the two together and especially the overwhelming institution wide slander and libel against Gore's credibility, Al managed to win the election but lose the selection.

Gore ran a good campaign but the corporate media as an institution sold Al and in turn the American People down the river.

Thanks for the thread, Drunken Irishman.

[betterdemsonly]

54. What do you propose we should do to change the corporate media?

Unfortunately FCC appointments are one area where Obama was in complete control, yet he still appointed anti-net neutrality committee members to the board. Things are not going to improve in the TV media. Conditions will likely decline significantly for the internet media.

[Uncle Joe]

63. The growing power and influence of the Internet is changing the corporate media, if nothing else

in enlightening the American People despite the corporate media's attempts to the contrary.

The Internet is ever increasing awareness as to what the corporate media is and what its' prime directive is; that being promoting corporate supremacy over "we the people," here and abroad.

I'm not suggesting there aren't some good, conscientious journalists out there, but as an institution, that's their business model.

The Internet has greatly reduced if not all but eliminated for the masses the corporate media's monopoly on the distribution and dissemination of information.

The Internet is also growing in power and influence on a daily basis as new generations come aboard familiar with its' workings since elementary school. As a result the nation's awareness is broadening and intensifying.

However the corporate media is fighting back in trying to change the Information Superhighway into he equivalent of cable television so as to put the genie back in the bottle.

They're trying to kill Net Neutrality.

This will be a long term, ongoing struggle, if the American People truly want government to work on their behalf as opposed to an artificial, authoritarian, legalized construct, we must elect political leaders ready, willing and able to buck this powerful trend.

I believe one optimum solution would be to convert the Internet into a public utility.

I also believe the corporate media needs to be broken up, the more voices the better and the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated.

I also believe a better formula for journalist accessibility to the government should be developed, they shouldn't be punished by denial if they're critical of government workings.

[nomorenomore08]

50. "I don't fault Nader for running. I do fault him, and the media, for wrongly smearing Gore."

I think history has proven that the "not a dime's worth of difference" line was mostly bullshit.

[CherokeeDem]

64. You might want to consider the Electoral College numbers....

before you try to say Florida doesn't matter....

New Hampshire has 4 electoral votes.... Florida has 29.....

Nader certainly didn't help but those "shenanigans" in Florida were nothing more than theft.... I was there.

[hfojvt]

73. If New Hampshire had gone to Gore

then he would have had 271 even without Florida. Making all of those shenanigans a moot point.

Of course, Gore came within a hair of losing Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin, which again would have made Florida a moot point. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/118

[Gothmog]

65. Yes, Nader also cost Gore New Hampshire

[standingtall]

66. Nader had a hand in the Bush election

The Gore couldn't carry Tennessee line is nothing more than an old GOP talking point from that election cycle. There is no democrat on the planet who could've carried TN in that election born there or not. Tennessee is a red state. Nader ran a deceptive campaign stated there was no difference between the 2 candidates when there clearly was, and smearing Gore. Gore did not run a bad campaign that why he got more votes. Yes Gore made some mistakes. At the top of the list was nominating Lieberman for VP. I say there is no difference between Nader and Lieberman. Both were more concerned with their own legacy's than the welfare of the country. That's why Lieberman had a hissy fit when he finished 4th in the 2004 Presidential primary and then lost his primary for the senate. He reacted by running as an independent sore loser. When it was clear the green party wasn't going to get the 5% it was after. Nader began to run almost exclusively against Gore.

[lordsummerisle]

67. Gore should have won his own state period

As another poster mentioned, only a few modern Presidents have lost their own home states. Arkansas, a quite red state, went for Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

[standingtall]

68. Arkansas was

no where near as red as Tennessee was in 2000, and Clinton had recently been Governor of Arkansas in 92. Apples and oranges. The fact that only a few modern Presidents managed to lose their home states and go on to win the Presidency is irrelevant, and so such an argument would have more teeth if you could say no Presidential candidate had ever won the Presidency without winning there home state. You cannot. The whole Gore couldn't carry TN is argument is regurgitated GOP talking point. Same thing Karl Rove and the gang were say back then. "Gore is out of touch he is losing Tennessee.' "The people who know him best are not voting for him." Yep straight from the Rove play book.

[lordsummerisle]

69. Gore didn't carry his home state

It's not a GOP talking point, it's a fact. He should have won it. If he had, he would have been President.
I suspect you're a Republican troll since you seem to be reveling in the fact that he lost.

[standingtall]

71. Who is reveling in the fact he lost

The 2000 election was disaster for the country. Which is why we still have a Republican supreme court today. Thank Ralph Nader for that. That fact is no Democrat could've won Tennessee in 2000. That fact also is Gore did not need to win Tennessee. That fact is Gore only lost Fla by 500 votes of the votes that were allowed to be counted. The fact is Nader took 95,000 votes from Florida, as well as costing us New Hampshire taking over 22,000 votes there. Without Nader the vote would not have been close enough for the supreme court,Jeb Bush, and Kathrine Harris to steal.

[lordsummerisle]

74. Wrong

Gore did need to win Tennessee. I am so tired of rehashing this. A strong candidate would have won out over the obstacles from a third party candidate. Thousands of democrats in Florida voted for Bush.

As for Florida, news organizations actually found that Gore had won more votes than Bush. Since it was discovered only after a few weeks after 9/11 it was essentially buried in the news cycle since the public was so freaked out after the terrorist attacks.

[standingtall]

75. Yes no disagreement Gore got more votes in Florida

As far as thousands of Democrats voting for Bush in Florida. I suspect that the bulk of those were Republicans who were Democrats at one time that never officially registered as Republicans. They were never going to vote for a Democrat. Like I said in my original post Gore made some mistakes, but he did not run a lousy campaign. He had gotten more votes than any Presidential candidate in history at that point.

[lordsummerisle]

76. I get it you hate Nader

and you believe all of the country's problems stem from his thwarting the 2000 election. It's a valid point of view.

But Bush still won in 2004, on that race outcome the protest was tepid at best. Books have been written on it.

Pesonally I hate the two party system and I love it when third party candidates come on the scene and rock the vote. Where would Bill Clinton have been without Ross Perot?

[standingtall]

77. Bush stole Ohio

in 2004. I also think Kerry did run a lousy campaign in 04. He ignored the swift boat stuff for far to long. Made himself look weak. As for 3rd and 4th parties I believe they are all just as corrupt as the 2 parties. The system itself is broken due to big money interest. Adding parties only gives big business more parties to buy. As far as Perot I believe he probably took just as many Democratic votes. Perot talked like an economic liberal in is 92 campaign as I remember it.

[lordsummerisle]

79. OK then

what should we do to fix all of these problems?

[standingtall]

81. Well a I dont have all the answers but

a constitutional amendment to get the money out of politics would be a good start.

[Tarheel_Dem]

83. "I love it when third party candidates come on the scene." WTH are you here, then?

This is "Democratic" Underground. We don't do the whole "third party" thing here. Read the TOS.

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[lordsummerisle]

91. So I take it

you (and DU) would be opposed if Bernie Sanders ran as an Independent?

[Tarheel_Dem]

92. If he ran against a "Democrat", you're damned straight. Read the rules.

I didn't make them up, and I don't run the joint. Unless, and until the Admins see fit to change their TOS, this board supports "Democrats".

Look, Skinner created a whole new playground for you guys. It's called Disgustionist, or some such. Take the third party crap over there. You won't be able to advocate third party candidates here. I think the rules are pretty simple, don't you?

[joshcryer]

85. Gore was VP for 8 years.

His state didn't know him and he didn't know his state. Clinton won Arkansas because he was a well respected governor there.

8 years is a long time to be out of the political spotlight in a state.

[lame54]

70. If Gore took New Hampshire he still would have lost by 1 electoral vote...

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

[standingtall]

72. I think your math is off

If Gore won New Hampshire you subtract 4 electorial votes from Bush putting him at 267 and add 4 to Gore giving him 270. So Gore wins.

[lame54]

88. you are correct - I misunderstood the premise...

I thought the claim was that Nader took New Hampshire and its 4 electoral votes

[Rex]

82. It is sad nobody would stand up for the fact that he did win the election.

Nobody but a handful of people, the rest just decided to become sheeple that day. The SCOTUS ruled, on with our lives...

[Baitball Blogger]

87. Gore worked his ass off for that campaign.

He did not take anything for granted. Though, I think his advisors should have been fired for the strange way he came across during the debates.

[Drunken Irishman]

90. Agreed. I think the biggest criticism lies with those advisers.

They were bad. They tried to change him and it hurt. Gore's biggest problem was listening to them instead of, like you said, firing 'em.

[RobertEarl]

93. You think 2000 was an honest election?

Really, you think it was honest count, even in NH?

Then why talk like it was?

The 2000 election was stolen.

That is all anyone on DU ever needs to write. The rest is just poppycock BS.