In 2000 Nader almost cost Gore ME, IA, MN, NM, OR, WI

[TruthIsAll]

Nader received 2.7% of the vote. Nader is a threat to Kerry if he pulls over 1%. Here's why:

Nader definitely cost Gore Florida (25 EV) and possibly New Hampshire (4 EV).

Nader almost cost Gore 40 electoral votes in the 6 states he won by razor-thin margins less than Nader's total votes.

Gore would have received about 2/3 of the Nader votes.

Here are the eight states with electoral votes, margin, Nader's total, and the Gore, Bush and Nader percentages.

FL 25 EV Bush "won" by 537; Nader 97,000.
Definitely cost Gore the state.
Gore 49%-Bush 49%-Nader 2%

NH 4 Bush won by 7,000; Nader 22,000.
May have cost Gore the state.
48-47-4

IA 7 Gore won by 4,000; Nader 29,000
Almost cost Gore the state
49-49-2

MN 10 Gore won by 59,000; Nader 127,000
48-46-5

NM 5 Gore won by 500; Nader 21,000
Almost cost Gore the state
48-48-4

OR 7 Gore won by 7,000; Nader 77,000
Almost cost Gore the state.
47-47-5

WI 11 Gore won by 5,000; Nader 94,000
Almost cost Gore the state.
48-48-4

ME 4 Gore won by 33,000; Nader 37,000
Solid Gore win
49-44-6

[JHBowden]

1. Bush and Gore are the same!

Gore is an imperialist! :crazy:

[freetobegay]

2. in 2004 Nader is going to cost us America!

eom

[Rationality]

3. Blah blah blah Nader's gonna threaten us all...

What is it with you people going after Nader? YOu people attacking Nader for his mere candidacy instead of trying to court his ideals are the reason we're losing votes to him in the first place! When will you people get that through your heads?

[freetobegay]

5. Election 2000

Nuff said.

[Rationality]

9. Our Election 2000 VP candidate: Lieberman

"Nuff said."

[sjgman9]

6. Rationality, lets be rational:

We applaud Nader's ideas. He's a great consumer advocate. Whats more important, Bush being thrown out of office or Nader's vanity run?

Nader needs to drop out. Now. Do you want 4 more years of Bush?

[Rationality]

11. Yes, let's be rational... my turn

What would be more important is for Kerry and the rest of us to finally stop this fight and see where Nader stands for just a moment. He is drawing the base that we have conceded per the misleadership of the DLC--the same DLC that was at the helm when we lost the Senate in 2002, and yes, the Presidency in 2000. WHy aren't we pushing our efforts against Bush? Every swipe we take at Nader is a wasted one.

[sjgman9]

17. Kerry wont concede anything!

Look, I'm no DLCer. Im here because of Dean. All I want is to really beat Bush. Nader has the capability to siphon off some of Kerry's lefty support. Whats more important to you, beating Bush or voting your conscience?


We are fighting Bush really hard, all of us. Those who support Nader deserve to have their judgment questioned. We NEED you guys behind Kerry. Yeah, he aint perfect, but no one is. We need everyone to beat Bush. Unity, Unity, Unity!!!

[Rationality]

21. Unity? Bah!

First, I never said I wasn't voting for Kerry, although come 2008 if he does what I expect him to do in Palestine he ain't getting my vote again.

But you and the rest of youse who keep saying Nader's going to drain you: YOU ARE THE ONES WHO ARE GOING TO SHOOT YOURSELVES IN THE FOOT EVERY FUCKING TIME YOU COME AFTER NADER

Thank you for your viewership.

[sjgman9]

22. Excuse me?

How on earth will I shoot myself in the foot when I come after Nader?
How will all the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot by pressuring Nader to drop out?

Please explain this to me

[Rationality]

27. The more you pressure him to drop, the more his base will rally around him

and to answer the other question, he supports the "security wall" and has always sides with Sharon.

[sjgman9]

29. Please help us out

And help turn Naders "base" into Kerry voters.


Kerry's gotta support the wall and side with sharon to make sure that the Jewish voters stay on the Dem side

[Rationality]

35. Yeah, that's pretty much what he said on Meet the Press

and I totally disaprove of it. That you can so readily dismiss this by saying that "Kerry's gotta support the wall and side with sharon to make sure that the Jewish voters stay on the Dem side..." excuse me for saying, but I find that quite troubling. Would you support the racial segregation of the 60s "to make sure that the white Southern voters stay on the Dem side?" You're saying about the same thing.

I seriously hope you didn't mean what you just said, but then again, you don't come across as genuine... 49 posts.....

[sjgman9]

36. I find it troubling too

I honestly do. I can see Kerry's rationalization, but I hope he changes his tune after the election.


I am genuine! I just started here, so forgive the 50 posts

[sjgman9]

23. also

What do you expect President Kerry to do in Palestine?

[elperromagico]

4. Kerry seems likely to win at least MN and IA by comfortable margins.

FL is going to be problematic once again, WI, NM, and OR are going to be a nailbiter.

It looks as though Kerry stands a good chance of losing PA. It wasn't one of the states where Nader's vote exceeded the margin of victory in 2000, but if we lose it, we have to pick up 21 electoral votes somewhere else just to break even. We'd have to pick up a good 40 to win. If we lose PA, we will probably have to grab OH and WV. But of course, if they go our way, PA's just as likely to go our way as well.

[osaMABUSh]

7. Don't see Kerry losing PA. Nothing has changed in *'s favor

I live in Pgh. and nothing has changed for the better here in Pa. I don't see Gore voters switching to Bush; the contrary is probably more true with some Bush voters switching to Kerry. Nader is much less of a factor too.

It makes sense across the country in the Blue states that it would be a net gain for the Dems from '00.

Bottom line: is the country better off now then four years ago? The answer, of course, is a resounding No.

[NNN0LHI]

8. Thats why the freepers have been sending money to him hand over fist n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. Relax

The Nader campaign held a rally in Portland, and it didn't even draw the 1,000 people needed to sign petitions to put Nader on the ballot.

He's yesterday's news.

Besides, the Pacific Greens are pretty responsible, as shown by their decision not to run candidates in 2002 and to endorse the Dem candidates instead. If they hadn't done that, Oregon would probably have a horrific governor named Kevin Mannix today.

[corporatewhore]

12. Nader didnt Gore did. Gore is responsible for getting people to vote

for him.

[JHBowden]

13. Nader's run was sufficient for Gore's loss.

Nobody says Nader was THE cause of Gore's "loss," since other factors like rightwing Democrats, the SC, confused voters, intimidation at the polls, etc. played a role.

However, Nader's run was sufficient to cause a Gore loss. This was completely dishonorable on Nader's part, since his actions sufficed to put people like Asscroft, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc. in the government.

[corporatewhore]

15. Gore was responsible for getting people to vote for him

Nobody owns our votes.They are ours to give to who ever best represents our views. If gore didnt appeal to nader voters that is not naders fault gore campaigned to more conservative voters

[Deja Q]

20. Nader haters are angry and uninformed or just need to get laid

The 'get laid' bit is facetious and they do have a MINOR claim to blaming the 2000 loss.

But there were many other issues they conveniently forget and it's annoying, to say the least.

And Gore ran a crap campaign too. That did not help in the slightest. People forgot that too, even I did.

[Rationality]

14. Thank you, ((n/t))

[John_H]

16. Who's smarter Rethugs or Nader supporters?

Rethugs read the above data and send Nader money. Naderites read the above data and vote for Nader.

[NNN0LHI]

18. You got it n/t

[Deja Q]

19. Don't forget these!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1430198&mesg_id=1430294&page=

Nader was a part of the selection 2000 issue.

To make Nader the ENTIRE issue is low.

Let's keep everything in a proper, COMPLETE perspective.

We saw them take over in 2000.

We saw them improve their control in 2002 - again, by incidents we didn't expect.

But this is 2004. If we haven't seen their M.O. by now, we deserve to lose. Nader isn't all of it so take please off the blinders, thank you very much.

[EndElectoral]

24. Nader

How about a Kerry-Nader ticket?

[freeforall]

25. Now, as in 2000, I am puzzled by Nader's

decision to run for President. What's his point? He may be a great consumer advocate, but what the hell is he doing? Didn't make sense in 2000 - doesn't make sense now.

[bobbyboucher]

26. That's true only IF

all those Nader voters would have voted for Gore, which is wishful thinking to say the least.

[TruthIsAll]

28. Wrong. I assume Gore gets 65-70% of Nader votes, not 100%.

The states that Gore won by under less than a few thousand votes, could have easily been lost if Nader had attracted slightly more than he did.

To repeat:
New Mexico:
Gore won by 500 votes. Nader got 21,000. If Nader got 500 more, Gore loses to Bush.

Or Iowa:
Gore won by 4,000; Nader got 29,000. If Nader got 4,000 more, Gore loses.

Or Oregon:
Gore won by 7,000, Nader got 77,000...

Or Wisconsin:
Gore won by 5,000. Nader got 94,000...

You get the idea.

[Yupster]

30. I agree with your numbers

I think your contentions were very fair and I agree with them. You didn't overclaim.

[Guaranteed]

31. WHAT-THE-FUCK-EVER.

How about some goddamned INTEGRITY in this place??? Stop blaming NADER for the votes that GORE didn't EARN.

[TruthIsAll]

33. I will blame Nader. That's why we have Bush now. And I will

blame him again, if Bush squeaks through. I guess having Bush complete the fascist takeover doesn't bother you too much.

Get off your high-principled horse. Get real. We are in deep shit and Nader is at least partially responsible. He made his statement in 2000. That should be enough.

Now he is just a frustrated egomaniac who is willing to have this nation disintegrate to prove his point.

You just don't get it, do you? Michael Moore now does.

[Guaranteed]

34. You want to win? Then start demanding some

fucking LEADERSHIP from the Democratic Party. THAT is what they are lacking, THAT is why they lose, THAT is why some people vote Green. Nader isn't the problem, Nader is a SYMPTOM of the problem, which is all the Democratic Party's. THEY LEAVE THEIR LEFT FLANK OPEN BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO COWARDLY TO VOTE ON PRINCIPLE.

Stop passing the buck. If the Dems want those votes, they're going to have to earn them- THAT is the truth. You want to deny that, fine, but you're just going to lose- AGAIN. Talk about never learning.

When the Democrats start doing their jobs, they'll start winning again. Until then, they'll continue their downward spiral.

NO ONE OWNS MY VOTE.

[IronLionZion]

32. Nader didn't put a gun to people's heads to vote for him

They made a choice and ended up shooting themselves in the foot.

This time around they have the same choice and an opportunity to stop the neo-con regime or shoot themselves in head.

The next four years of Bush will be much worse than the last four so we can not let that happen.