An Event Can Have More Than One Cause

[QC]

Now that Nadermania is upon us once again, with the same old arguments about whether Nader cost us the 2000 election or not, it's worth pointing out that an event, especially one as complex as the outcome of an election, can and often does have more than one cause.

Academics have a $5 word to describe this, overdetermined. But it's something we see in everyday life. Someone runs out in front of you, it's raining, and you slam on the brakes, skid, and hit him from behind. Clearly the main cause of the accident is the guy who ran out in front of you, but the wet road had a lot to do with it, too. And if you happened to be fiddling with your cell phone and thus didn't see him until it was too late to stop, then that was also a factor.

A lot happened in 2000. There was the voter purge in Florida, Gore's sometimes lackluster campaign, the Nader votes in Florida and other close states, Katherine Harris's shenanigans, and, of course, the Felonious Five's final theft. The combined effect was to put Bush in the White House.

Saying that Nader singlehandedly cost us the election is simplistic, and so is insisting that he had nothing at all to do with it. He was one factor, albeit an important one, among many.

[Bunny]

1. You are correct in saying that blaming Ralph entirely for 2000 is

simplistic. However, his part of the fiasco was the most preventable. The voter purge, Kathrine Harris,and SCOTUS were going to happen, no matter what. Ralph played the biggest role in making this possible.

If he had backed off in FL, a state that he KNEW was crucial, and he KNEW he had no chance of winning, then the race wouldn't have been close enough for the other factors to matter. If even half of the 90,000+ votes that Ralph got in FL had gone to Gore, the world would be a different place today.

So, in that respect, Ralph did play the largest part in having Duhbya installed. No Nader apologist can ever change that. Ralph in 2004 is nothing but a pathetic joke, and certainly not a threat to the eventual Dem nominee, but those of us who remember his role in 2000 are fully entitled to heap scorn and contempt on Ralph's evil, rotten soul.

I'm just sayin'...

[izzie]

2. Well duh. every one knows that.

Does Ralph explain Tenn not voting for Gore? What about the 40 to 45 % of people who do not even come out to vote? We could also say it was because Gore back tracked and let Bush add all the service votes even if they came in after Nov. 4 and I could go on.

[Bunny]

3. Who cares about Tenn?

It all came down to FL, and Ralph is to blame. Without Ralph, none of your what-ifs would have come into play. None. Defend Ralph all you want, you'll find there's a HUGE number of people here who blame him for Bush being in the White House. We can't ALL be wrong, can we?

[BillZBubb]

4. Wow, talk about missing the point!

Tennessee didn't matter--it wasn't close. Florida mattered, it was close. Nader was only one of several negative factors in Florida. He was not the only one, but enough to tip the election. Really, this is not that difficult to understand.

[Nay]

7. I agree completely, bunny. For people to say there were all those

other factors is, in the end, irrelevant. EACH of those factors could, in theory, have been reversed, resulting in Gore's uncontested win. But the easiest way for Gore to have won hands down was for Nader to not have run! Surely out of the 97,000 cast for Nader in Florida, more than the 537 needed for Gore would have actually gone to Gore.

So, as much as I like many of Nader's opinions, I wish he'd go away. The idea that we would be in Iraq even if Gore was president is ludicrous, and the other crap that has been going on. . .well, let's agree that it is stupid to claim that the Dems and Repukes are the "same" -- at least not in this case.

[sangh0]

5. Wow! A reasonable and logical post

I predict this thread will sink like a stone! :-)

[QC]

6. Yeah, that's usually the way it goes, isn't it?

;-)