Despite the platitudes of the far left, THEY gave us the Neocons!

[spaniard]

whine, bitch, and moan about the DLC, about Bill Clinton, about Hillary Clinton, about Lieberman, Biden, Ed Schultz, moderates, centrists, etc., etc.

YOU gave us Bush - the neocons - the patriot act - the Iraq war by casting a single vote for Ralph Nader.

if Nader wasn't a choice, the 2.7% who supported Nader would have split so Gore would have picked up about 2% more support and Bush would have picked up an additional 1%. In a non-Nader race, Gore would have prevailed over Bush 50% to 49%.

That result fits the data showing twice as many 2000 Nader voters would have supported Gore rather than Bush. Correcting for rounding errors, exit polls indicate that if only Gore and Bush were running, Nader's votes would have broken down as follows:

1,326,159 (46%) would have picked Gore
893,716 (31%) would have sat out the election.
663,080 (23%) would have favored Bush.
2,882,955 (100%) total

Here are the actual results from the 2000 election:

Gore 50,999,897 48.38%
Bush 50,456,002 47.87%
Nader 2,882,955 2.74%
Total 105,405,100 100.00%*

* Includes all candidates

See: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Allocating the 2,882,955 Nader votes along established patterns: 46% / 1,326,159 to Gore and 23% / 663,080 to Bush (leaving out the 31% of Nader voters who said they wouldn't have voted at all) shows Gore more than doubling his popular vote margin.

Taking Nader out of the picture would add 663,079 to Gore's actual 543,895 vote margin for a total of 1,206,974. Adding 0.63% to Gore's 0.51% margin increases it to 1.14%. This calculation understates Gore's increased margin by as much as 300,000 if the 893,716 Nader voters who said they wouldn't vote at all changed their minds and followed the pattern.

Estimated Vote Totals in Non-Nader race

Gore 52,326,056 49.64%
Bush 51,122,397 48.50%
Neither 893,716 00.84%+
Total 105,405,100 100.00%*


Nader kept the election close enough to steal by splitting the anti-Bush vote in key states.

The "Nader Factor" was larger than the margin by which Gore beat Bush nation-wide, even controlling for the Nader voters who say they wouldn't have voted or who would have voted for Bush.

This isn't even considering the disproportionate attention and impact Nader had in the closest states - states Nader swore he would avoid "spoiling" to get onto the ballot. It's not possible Nader was unaware that his focus on these states would help Bush vs. Gore.

Gore won Florida by all fair, full vote counts. However, Nader's "spoiler" efforts there - culminating in his last-ditch, last minute campaign swings - handed Bush the White House by drawing enough votes to cost Gore a clear victory.

Nader pulled a net estimated 22,422 votes from Gore. That turned a Gore 21,885 vote win into the "official" 537 vote "loss." Gore lost New Hampshire (by 7,211 votes, 1.3%). Nader took triple that margin.

Gore would have won Florida's 25 electoral votes - and probably New Hampshire's 4 - if Nader hadn't run, or if he hadn't run intentionally helping Bush. Either state's electoral votes added to Gore's 266 "official" total would have given Gore enough to win the White House - 270 (with New Hampshire's) 291 (with Florida's) or 295 with both.

Nader intentionally helped Bush by forcing Gore's campaign to expend scarce resources defending several states carried by Dukakis / Benson and Clinton / Gore from 1988-1996 - including New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Maine, Michigan, and Washington. Nader's campaign turned these solid Gore states into swing states. Gore won hard-fought races in all of them - and in Florida - but defending them cost Gore decisively elsewhere.

Nader's actual vote totals weren't decisive in several other states, but absent Nader's efforts to help Bush, Gore could have fully contested states like West Virginia, Arizona, Arkansas, Tennessee, Nevada, Missouri and Ohio.

Gore had to pull out of some completely, and couldn't afford to shore up support in others as he ran out of time and money. Bush won all of these states in large part because Nader ran a "stalking horse" campaign to maximize damage to Gore.

Nader's total support was small but decisive in such a close race. Nader's efforts cost Gore a clear win in Florida, a likely win in New Hampshire and possibly tipped as many as seven other states to Bush. A Gore victory in any of these states would have prevented the "recount" controversy and denied Bush his 5-4 Supreme Court selection.

At the very least, Nader cost Gore Florida's 25 electoral votes. At worst, he cost Gore the 95 electoral votes of as many as nine states. If not for Nader, Gore might have won a mandate for the center / left - a crushing electoral landslide: Gore 361 vs. Bush 176.

Instead, Bush claimed a stained 271 to 266 "victory" as a mandate for the extreme right wing.

Thank you, finger wagging "principled" progressives.

Thank you.

Now you can go back to projecting your betrayal of the left on real Democrats.

[Jacobin]

1. munch munch

:popcorn:

[kentuck]

2. Here we go again...

:(

Bush stole the election and it was close enough for him to steal with or without Nader.

[spaniard]

4. it wouldn't have been even close , electorally, if Nader wasn't in it.

Gore would have an electoral landslide.

[kentuck]

8. And what's your excuse for 2004?

Nader didn't run in 2004. What happened?

[spaniard]

9. Nader didn't run in 2004?

[havocmom]

3. Greed & megalomania gave us neocons who lied & cheated their way

into power. The left didn't have anything to do with it. The program for neocon agenda was being put into place at LEAST as far back as 1980, with the backroom deals with Iran to hold the hostages thru the election to make sure Carter lost. Then the media ownership rules changes were put in place to assure the media would parrot what the neocons wanted America to hear.

Much as I dislike Ralph the past several years, he really didn't cause this, nor did his supporters.

Now go back to projecting whatever it is you project.

[xray s]

5. shoulda coulda woulda

whatever.

how are we going to win in '06, Don Quixote?

:popcorn:

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. LOL!

good point!

[TomClash]

7. OK, I'll play this game

Would you say the same about all the moderate Dems who crossed over to vote for Bush because he was so "reasonable?" There were more of those types in the 2000 election than Nader voters. If they had voted for Gore he would have received over 300 electroal votes.

I dislike Nader and I dislike the Greens even more because Gore was the most environmentally conscious candidate this country has ever know. The Greens practiced the politics of stupidity. But to blame Nader and the Greens for Gore's "loss" - that dog won't hunt.

[PA Democrat]

62. Case in point. In my county registered Democrats outnumber registered

Republicans 2 to 1. And yet the county voted for BUSH in both 2000 and 2004. And Nader was not even on the radar screen here.

The Catholic church in my county was preaching politics from the pulpit and they had a much greater influence on the election than the OP's "far lefties".

[AtomicKitten]

70. those are GOP talking points.

I doubt very seriously a substantial amount of Dems crossed over to vote for numbnuts.

Data please.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. I agree. I sat in disbelief as Naderites, seething with anger....

...swore to vote against the Democratic candidate to teach all of us Democrats a lesson. Some lesson. The ones that have most deeply learned the lesson the Naderites swore to teach us all are, the elderly, the working poor, the homeless, the young people who died and are dying in Iraq as we speak, all those who have lost their jobs, all the incarcerated under a suspension of habeas corpus, and so much more it requires a treatise to list.

And the Naderites did it not once, but TWICE.

I wonder... will the Naderites go it again for a THIRD time?

[spaniard]

12. and they're here on DU, daily, saying they won't vote for

Hillary or Clark or Warner or anyone who doesn't measure up the their ideological standards.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

22. Well, there are people I'd rather run for office, however...

I will vote for Democrats no matter what. It's our only hope.

[enough already]

48. I won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances

and I refuse to apologize for it. I'm perfectly comfortable standing with Cindy Sheehan on this one. Anyone who won't openly fight to stop this illegal war, like Hillary, can go to hell. Fire away.

[AZBlue]

63. You'd rather support the Republicans?

I'm not trying to flame you, truly I'm not. I just don't understand your rationale. Don't vote for her in the primaries, don't work on her campaign, I get all that. But if you don't vote for her on 11/4/08, you are basically voting for the Republicans. I just can't see any justification for it. I just don't understand.

[enough already]

85. I'm not voting for ANYONE who supported this bullshit war

Period.

[AtomicKitten]

71. that's what I tried to ascertain.

and was vilified for having the audacity to ask.

In short, yes they will.

[bee]

11. What are you trying to do here tonight?

other than piss people off that is. I bit my tongue while reading your Hillary thread... but this is ridiculous. Stop. Blaming. Nader.
Maybe if people who make this argument spent a little more time thinking about how the Dems could have appealed to the Nader voters rather than blame Nader for giving people a choice, then we might actually learn something from it that will help us in the future. No good will ever come of this blame Nader crap. Plus... its just bullshit. Pick a new strawman. Please. :nuke:

[spaniard]

13. giving it back to the daily, up to the minute, party purity crowd.

[bee]

19. right. you sure showed me.

Ill be sure to run right out and pick up my Hillary bumper sticker first thing in the morning.
Oh wait I forgot.... Id rather eat glass.

[Don Claybrook]

14. blah blah blah

I have a 7-week old puppy that doesn't whimper this much. What would you have progressives do--take a hard turn to the right to ensure that a 3'rd Party candidate knows he has no chance with said former progressives? Do you actually hope you can sway people with this sort of thing, or are you just working this out of your system finally?

[A Simple Game]

15. I think most people have this figures out.

* was going to win in 2000. That's it, he was going to win no matter what it took. Nader had nothing to do with it except maybe make it easier and less obvious.

[tuvor]

16. I never understood blaming people who play by the rules. Read this post.

The neocons deserve all of the blame. Have you read this?

Gore won Florida by 30,000 votes (39 recommendations)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x79849

[Jade Fox]

17. Conservative reaction to Watergate gave us the Neocons....

and also, Conservative reaction to the changes in the 1960s.

Conservatives in this country were very pissed-off after Nixon resigned instead of facing impeachment. They worked hard to turn the country to the right by buying up the media, poring millions into Conservative think tanks, and courting the Religious Right. They scored a big success after only six years with Reagan's election.

This has been documented in detail in such books as "The Republican Noise Machine" by David Brock, and Robert Parry's "Secrecy and Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq".

[agincourt]

18. Stupidity gave us the neocons,

Republicans who want America to remain a major military and economic party whould hate this bag of turds(Bush, Rush, Cheney, Bolton, Delay......etc), as much as liberals. Not only are they regressive,they are running the US in the ground like a golden-parachute CEO.

[robbedvoter]

20. earth to OP: Gore Won! They stole it! Would've without Nader as well

Not saying Nader didn't help some, but they would've stolen it regardless. No way I'm gonna believe that 94,000 people in Florida voted for Nader - it's as plausible as the Buchanan votes in Palm Beach.
And please don't mix Clark with the Hillarys and Warners - the man opposed war!
Something tells me that you're here to piss as many people off as you can.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[understandinglife]

25. ditto.

Peace.

[ulysses]

27. oh, I did.

Funny thing is the From-bots have absolutely no proof that anyone on this board voted for Nader.

Twice, in fact - 96 and 00.

[Dhalgren]

23. So are you suggesting that all leftists should just leave the

Democratic Party to you center-right purists? That seems to be a real formula for success, doesn't it?

[AtomicKitten]

72. I consider myself a leftist

and still I'm to the right of some people here.

Answer: I'm a leftist WITHIN the Democratic party. Some people here have nothing but contempt for the Democratic party and have dedicated their political consciousness to trashing Dems at every opportunity. Although they CLAIM to be left of me, all their efforts end up supporting the Republican in the end, inadvertently, indirectly, but still the end-result is the same.

[ulysses]

24. bored?

For such an insignificant little man - as we've heard for so long - Nader still has your panties in a bunch after all this time. :eyes:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

26. Will the Naderites try to punish the Democrats (again) in 2006.

I think that's a valid question I'd love to have the answer to. Or perhaps the Naderites are done punishing the Democrats.

No doubt the GOP will, AGAIN, financially support Nader and the Naderites if they decide to punish the Democrats again.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[High Plains]

89. Look, people aren't obligated to vote for Democrats.

Perhaps if the Democrats tilted to the left, they would pick up some of those voters who flee to third parties or independent candidates.

[mom cat]

28. You can't blame the left for two stolen elections.

[ulysses]

29. can party centrists win elections by themselves?

If so, why don't they?

If not, why the continued screeching about the left?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

32. I am the far left.

My views are to the left of most Democrat views. I am anti-corporate. I hate lobbyists. I demand health care for everyone. I find that unbridled capitalism is nothing more than a road to fascism.

However, I will never vote in any way that might help put a fascist into power. That's why I vote Democrat, and not for Nader. What happened in both Bush elections was unthinkable and horrific.
I suppose that's why some (maybe many) Democrats are still angry. I am the far left, and even I am angry at the Naderites. To this day, they pretend they did nothing wrong. Their arguments sound very much like those of the right wing.

I wouldn't give these people a penny or a hand.

[ulysses]

34. better tell the OP that. n/t

[bee]

41. I think our OP has abandoned us. n/t

[ulysses]

43. so it would appear. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

73. I get it, but they don't.

They don't understand that their anti-Democratic Party efforts actually end up supporting the Republicans in the end, a party that holds completely OPPOSITE points-of-view.

I don't understand why some of these so-called leftists - I don't think in effect they really are - would rather tank the Democrats than oust the Republicans. That is a conscious choice they are making regardless of their lofty excuses why.

[beaconess]

77. Hear hear

[bvar22]

30. Like an Alcoholic blaming someone else for HIS faults,

blaming Nader for the Democratic Party losses in 2000 allows them to avoid looking at the Party's shortcomings.

Was Nader (a single mildly wimpy man) strong enough to derail the entire Democratic Party (50 million+), or was the Democratic Party's message that weak?


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

In EVERY case, "Barriers to Trade" and "Restrictions on Corporations" were created to protect something valuable!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

37. I consider Naderites to be the RW, because they helped the RW

I don't consider Naderites or Nader to be the far left. I judge people by what they do, not what they say. Ultimately, Nader and the Naderites did something that hurt the Democrats. It was precisely their intention. Nader admitted it. Nader accepted GOP money.

I don't consider Nader and the Naderites to be the far left. I consider them to be the far right, judging by whom they were helping and whom they were trying to hurt.

[pauldp]

33. No. The Supreme Court gave us the Neocons. n/t

[HR_Pufnstuf]

35. Yes, but what if...

...another 0.8% from the Libertarians, Constitution and Reform Party had voted for Bush???

I would complain more about the large majority of Americans who don't vote than those who do.

[omega minimo]

36. RONALD FUCKING REAGAN GAVE YOU THE NEO-CON ARTISTS

:evilfrown:

and there's no bloody way you know what would have happened without Nader in the race.

GO BITCH AT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T VOTE AT ALL.

Thank you.

[HR_Pufnstuf]

39. Yeah, I would be complaining at the Dem Leadership..

..for not running a more convincing campaign.

Whiners never win.

[omega minimo]

42. So why can't they see that Republican Lite hurts them?

re: "non-voters" 7:35 JINX!!

[Boojatta]

38. "if Nader wasn't a choice...Gore would have prevailed 50% to 49%"

Perhaps you should discuss this matter with Nader. Alternatively, perhaps you would like there to be legislation prohibiting Nader from being a candidate?

[No Exit]

40. Question

What if Gore/Lieberman had taken office?

We know now that Lieberman is quite supportive of many of the */Repuke policies. IMO, Lieberman is a neocon sympathizer, and the neocons know it. Gore, to my knowledge, has nothing to do with the neocons.

We also know that the neocons are reckless and ruthless. And they're definitely plotters.

Would the neocons have taken out Gore, in order to quickly give the presidency to Lieberman?

(Note: IMO, even as a neocon sympathizer, Lieberman would not have been as bad a president as Shrub--because that is a benchmark very, very, few persons can achieve.)

[intheflow]

44. Gore won the 2000 election.

Even with the Nader votes.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spaniard]

46. what? Are you looking for me?

Answer - none - third post in this thread not counting the OP. :(

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

47. About the stupidest thing I EVER heard

and it goes to show a lack of anything but the most shallow thinking- and a fundamental misunderstanding of Poly Sci 101.

Any party that moves too far toward their opponent's ideology- and repeatedly alienates its base (like the Dems did under Clinton and the DLC) should expect a backlash. In this case, people moving into the Green Party.

Same thing has happened innumerable times throughout history. It's a common pattern.

Notice how the Republicans don't pander to the Democratic center left. They go out of their way not to alienate their base.

AND look where they are- they control all three branches of the government- AND the media.

Look where the Dems are after running with a DLC strategy for 11 years.

Utterly IRRELEVANT in national politics.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[AtomicKitten]

74. that's not what transpired.

The DLC produced the most successful Dem in a generation.

The irrelevancy has much more to do with the style of politics perpetrated by the necons which includes but is not limited to marginalizing their opponents, stealing elections and sharpening their elbows to shove opposing voices in Congress, and browbeating the media until they acquiesce into defending their reporting.

The DLC is not the boogeyman and NOT responsible for the status quo.

Nice try, though.

And, for the record, being snotty and condescending does not a point make. There is no need for people here at DU to insinuate those holding an opposing opinion are stupid or shallow-thinkers in their various assorted attempts to dominate.

[Bridget Burke]

49. Since when does "Far Left" = "Naderoid"?

My opinions are definitely left of the Mythical Moderate; I like much of the Green Party platform. But there's no way that I would vote for a 3rd party candidate in a Presidential election. Nader did the Greens a lot of harm.

Nader did his part in 2000--with some aid from the Republicans. But the crooked election in Florida & the Supreme Court gave Bush the Presidency.

And the Neocons have been around since Reagan & Bush the Smarter. (Remember Newt Gingrich.)

Please--what are the beliefs of the "Far Left"?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

64. Absolutely correct! Naderite is the antithesis of far left.

The far left doesn't take any Repug money and doesn't help Repugs win.

[rman]

50. sure, why blame the people who benefit?

[Armstead]

52. Tawn...

Yep it was all the Left's fault for letting the election get so close. It was the left's fault that the Democrtic Party tried to bury most real issues under the carpet in 2000, and let the Repuglicans define the terms of the political debate.

Sorry but it wasn;t the "left" that chose to run a non-campaign and thus lose the White House.

[oneoftheboys]

53. Not only do you seem to be whining...

but you also appear to be looking backward.

2006 is going to be a great year!

[mrgorth]

54. I won't vote for Hillary.

[radio4progressives]

55. what kool aid drinking jibberish!

[myrna minx]

56. And here I thought the Nader wars were over.

:eyes: We must be gaining traction on many fronts in order for this old chestnut to be brought back out to flame about now. Ugh.

[nomatrix]

57. I am curious about your other thread

You know the one,
DU hates Hillary.

I suspect that I won't be the first one to tell you, Bill Clinton cost Gore votes. Not the election.
This is how.
Gore didn't want him to campaign for him.
Also because of Bill's reputation, real or imagined.
Even though Gore distanced himself from Clinton, had nothing to do with all the Starr crap, he was still left with that legacy.

Don't get me wrong. I liked most of what he did in office. He is a politician, and a Rhodes scholar.

Hillary, OTOH, was a part of that real or imagined scenario. The ability of the RW to smear the LW is legendary. If it were a science, it would be taught in schools. How much a a chance does a candidate have coming into an election, with baggage, to raise funds & run strong when the graffiti is already on the wall?

Short of a lobotomy, people don't forget something that is repeated over and over even if it is a lie. I don't believe she has much of a chance. In this race, she would need a taxi to cross the finish line.

Who do I support? Let's see how much democracy is left by 2008.

Who would want the job?

[LittleClarkie]

58. Oh, how novel. God forbid people should exersize

their constitutional right to vote for whoever they damn well please.

I thought you were going to point out the origins of the neocon movement in the old left. Now that would have been different.

Flamebait.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

65. People can vote for anyone they want.

I don't stop Repugnicans or Naderites from going to the polls, but I sure don't think they are intelligent, I don't believe they have anyone's well being in mind, and I sure wouldn't want one for a friend.

[LittleClarkie]

66. Indeed. But neither would I blame the Bush regime on them.

Saying that he made Gore lose or that everything that's happened since is his fault is wrong. And we sure didn't mind a third party candidate when it was Perot. It's all part of the democracy thang.

That isn't to say that I don't think Nader isn't wrongheaded as hell. And I have no patience to listen to him rail against Bush's policies. After 4 years of Bush's policies, running in 2004 was nothing but an egotistical spite move. He and his can shove their "dime's worth a difference" up their butts.

I hope his integrity wasn't something he cherished, because it's gone now.

Thank goodness he wasn't a real factor in 2004.

But I still won't blame the coming of the neocons on him.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

88. Spoilers are called that because they spoil it for the main candidate.

Spoilers can happen to either party. Naderites did it to lefties TWICE, not just once, at a very crucial time when this country was faced with a Nazi-like regime. Then the Naderites have the chutzpah to admit it was to punish the Democrats, and openly show that, yes, they were paid by the Repugnicans. Isn't that special?

And now I have to like Naderites, and consider them lefties?

The answer is, I won't, thank you very much.

[Aaaargh]

59. Nonsense -- splitting traditional Democrats is a part of the DLC program,

and that's why we traditional Democrats, left and true-moderate, need to unite to fight the DLCers and take our party back.

There's no straightforward reason for people who hold to the corporatist and imperialist views espoused by DLCers to favor the Democratic Party over the Republican Party. So why aren't DLCers content to be (or remain) Republicans?

Answer: Because the real goal of the DLC and those who shill for it is to neutralize the Democratic Party by making it into a 'lite' version of the Republican Party. Their efforts are all about limiting mainstream voters' choices to marginal issues, while the wants of big business and the moneyed elite are served by both major parties. Indeed, they want to narrow the difference between the operative agendas of the two parties far past where they are today.

Loyal, traditional Democrats still stand in the way of this leveling agenda, and pose a serious threat to its ultimate victory. After all, polls show that the majority of American voters today actually agree with the views and principles of traditional Democrats. What if politicians who actually represent those views manage to grab the reins of the Democratic Party away from the Republicanizers, despite all their big-money corporate contributions? Real Democrats might just gain control of the government again!

The defection of some on the Democratic left into the Nader camp in 2000 and (far less of them in) 2004, in fact, represents a part of the Republicanizing program promoted by the DLC. Under our electoral system, third parties are, by definition, marginalized. Thus, the Naderite/Green Party voters are unlikely to accomplish anything, except to undermine the Democratic Party -- which, despite the rise of the corruption-fueled DLC agenda within it, still represents the best, and perhaps the only, chance for the interests of the working- and middle-class to be strongly represented in government.

Yes, those folks who chose to vote for Nader were suckered, and not just by Nader and the self-defeating armchair-vanguard of the Alex Cockburn side of the left, but by the Republicans and corporatists who poured money into Nader's campaigns. At the same time, the Republicanizing DLC 5th column within the Democratic Party has sought to undermine the influence of left-Democrats representative to their numbers in the party's membership, and to demonize them.

Setting aside the question of whether Nader voters really cost Al Gore the election in 2000 -- in actual vote counts, they definitely did not do so to Kerry in 2004 -- it's plainly deceitful for pseudo-moderates of the DLC ilk to complain about that defection, when it represents a portion of the shift which they have long relished, and are still striving to bring about.

The DLCers' argument that "'we' have to be as much like Republicans as possible, or Republicans will win!" is, obviously, as self-defeating as anything offered by Nader -- and, like Nader's pitch, it's just bait for suckers. We Democrats need to put the traditional Democratic coalition back together, and that coalition includes a great deal of the American left. As for the vocal-but-miniscule DLC ilk, let them finally abandon their efforts to fool us, and find their natural home back in the GOP.

[Dhalgren]

87. Well said! And absolutely spot-on!

Welcome to DU!

The corporatist imperialists are neither Republican or Democratic - they are both. There seem to be a larger number infecting the Republican Party than the Democratic, but we must recognize the Democratic version when we see it. The DLC are these Democratic corpo-imperialists. If they succeed in maintaining their strangle-hold on the Democratic Party, the Republican version of this fascism will be in power for the rest of our lifetimes...

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

60. No, so called Reagan Democcrats did. n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. AAAAARRRRGGGGH!

Just AAAARRRRGGGGH!

I've argued this too many times, and DLC interns keep bringing it up as if they've made some major new discovery.

How about this? If Gore hadn't said "Me too" to every damn thing Bush said and mumbled meaningless platitudes about "policies that benefit working families," he would have won the Nader voters over.

[kenny blankenship]

67. LOOK AT THIS PICTURE OF CHEWBACCA!

It does NOT make sense.

I think I'm reading you, loud and clear.

[LWolf]

68. This rates right up there with:

"They hate us for our freedoms!"

"Sadaam has weapons of mass destruction!"

And many other oft-repeated right wing lies and justifications. It's bullshit, to put it mildly.

False rhetoric: Far left = Nader voters.

I'm one of those on the far left; I've never cast a vote for Nader, and I know plenty out there who say the same.

Numbers? We already know that Gore got the popular vote. Instead of demonizing those who vote their conscience for not agreeing with you, how about going after all those irregularities down in Florida?

If you need a scapegoat, try going after corrupt, fraudulent voting systems. See if you can't guarantee one vote counted correctly for every voter who wants to cast it next time. It cost us Florida and 2000, it cost us '04, and it will cost us '06 and '08 while you bitch about Nader, heaping much more power upon him than he actually has.

[Acryliccalico]

69. Had to bookmark this one

:popcorn:

[leesa]

75. This crap is very tiresome. Can't you cheerlead a war someplace?

[AtomicKitten]

78. Nice. * sarcasm * If I were the moderator, I'd strike this.

Is that really necessary? First of all, it's opposite of the truth. Secondly, it is clearly meant to inflame the topic and demean the OP.

Do you really have a paucity of words in your repertoire precluding a civilized response?

[fujiyama]

76. Just to be fair though

most of them learned their lesson and voted for Kerry this election.

Unfortunately, we can't say the same about all Gore voters. Some bought into Bush's "I'm the 9/11 preznit" BS.

Look, Nader is a pathetic, irrelevant, piece of pond scum. He proved it by getting less than 1 half of 1 percent in '04.

Yes, it's easy and at times saying 'told ya so' is fun (though when it comes to politics I'd rather NOT have to say it) but is it really all that productive? How many times has this dead horse been beaten?

[ulysses]

80. "is it really all that productive?" you ask.

Of course - all the Nader-hating is simply about cowing people into accepting the centrist POV, and always was. One cannot be certain that the horse is, in fact, dead unless one continues to beat it.

[Telly Savalas]

79. You've got a point, however...

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing.

He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.

Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"

[struggle4progress]

81. First of all, Nader's not even close to being a leftist.

Second, plenty of people rather far to the left of Nader didn't vote for him.

Third, it's entirely possible to admire Nader, without having said one nice thing about him during any electoral season, and in fact many people who admire Nader worked hard to elect a Democratic President in 2000 and 2004.

Fourth, blaming Nader is a rightwing talking point: it is intended to encourage our side to cannibalize itself rather than focussing on our objective enemy, the Bushista regime, with its Diebold machines, its illegal redistrictings, its corporate media whores, and its other various corruptions.

Finally, instead of wasting time pointing fingers, real patriots will get out there and FIGHT BACK

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

82. That's an odd notion of "accountability" if you ask me

First I don't think all "far left" folks voted for Nader.

Second even if his being in the race cost Gore a large enough margin to win without doubt, that was unforeseen, it is history.

Nobody but the neocons are responsible for their atrocious behavior, lack of ethics, and culture of corruption (that label has been taken up by the MSM, I notice).

Now having said all that, if anyone tries to split our vote in the coming elections, I'll probably be willing to assign some degree of accountability for any lost elections that are close to those who split the vote.

[Douglas Carpenter]

83. do you want the progressive/left to work within the Democratic Party?

and to try to promote their values and issues within the Democratic Party?

I do. I just wonder if you do?
_____________________

Borrowed from:
LynnTheDem
______________________

139. a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman


Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml


The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

[IndianaGreen]

84. Stuck on 2000? Use Vaseline!

:boring:

[ComerPerro]

86. Nader voters could argue that the DLC

gave us teh neo-cons, because they wouldn't stand up for actual liberal values and principles.

Playing to the middle and moderates disgusted some people enough to not vote Democratic. And not all of those who were disgusted voted for Nader. Some of them voted for Bush and the neocons.

Moderates in this country became convinced that there was no difference between Bush and Gore, and so they voted for Bush because they thought they could have a beer with him (somehow forgetting that because Bush is so irresponsible with his consumption that his beer would have to be non-alcoholic)

[BikeWriter]

90. The Exteme Court did that.