What really happened in 2000. Not Nader's falt.

[Meldread]

You hear many people demonizing Nader on these boards. You hear people demonizing him for what (they claim) he did in the 2000 election. Why do so many people think the Democrats are some how entitled to the votes that are cast for 3rd party candidates? There seems to be this rampant misconception that some how, magically, had that 3rd party candidate not run the Democrat would have won the race. That isn't the case -- it's false. It's time to take responsibility for running crappy campaigns. Gore SHOULD HAVE easily beaten Bush back into the Stone Age but didn't.

Nader didn't cost Gore the election in 2000. Gore and the DLC cost him the election in 2000.

The fact is many people who vote for Nader aren't going to vote for your candidate anyway. They are people who would have either stayed home, or voted for someone else. If you factor in how many people who would have voted for Bush or Gore then factored in how many would have stayed home the net loss of votes is extremely small and not enough to win.

Folks have to remember that the Democrats are the fastest shrinking party in the United States while the third parties, combine, equal or pass the Democrats in number. Why? Because the Democrats keep moving further and further to the right leaving their base behind, and their base is starting to shop elsewhere. That is the DLC's and DNC's fault NOT Nader's. That is John Kerry's fault. That is Bill Clinton's fault. Nader wasn't hiding in the shadows and using black voodoo magic to siphon off votes from the Democrats. The Democrats LOST those votes because they FAILED to win those votes. If Democrats want to win then they have to accept responsibility and learn from their mistakes.

As the Republicans move further and further to the right the DLC will keep following in order to maintain their "moderate" stance. However, each time they shift to the right they leave people behind. There is a reason that about 50% of the registered voters didn't vote in 2000. There is a reason why you hear people say "there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans". There is a reason the third parties are growing in number. The DLC claim to be leaders, but one day they are going to turn around and notice that no one is following.

Al Gore lost the 2000 election because he FAILED to create a clear, strong, alternative vision for America compared to Bush. He FAILED to make strong contrasts between himself and Bush. He FAILED to appeal to and inspire voters. Kerry will suffer the same fate. It won't be Ralph Nader's fault or those who voted for him if Kerry loses -- Nader is just a scapegoat. It'll be Kerry's fault if he loses.

There is a reason Al Gore has become a better politician since he lost the 2000 election. He learned from his mistakes. Kerry and other Democrats would be wise to follow Gore's example: Learn from his mistakes and don't repeat them.

[Killarney]

1. If Nader had not run, Gore would be president

That's all that matters to me.

Hell, if only 1,000 of the 97,000 Florida voters that voted for Nader had voted for Gore, he would be president.

I'm all for people in strong blue or red states to vote for whoever they want, but in a swing state like Florida, voting 3rd party is unconscionable.

[Meldread]

5. You didn't even read the post. ;) -nt-

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

14. How true. Bush owes his Presidency to Nader

Rumor is that the wacko is going to run again. Bush must be thrilled.

[mark414]

18. actually...

if katherine harris, jeb bush, and the GOP hadn't disenfranchised thousands off voters in florida, gore would've won.

stop blaming nader.

[mdmc]

78. The Dems let Harris et all walk all over them

not Nader.
Most Nader voters wouldn't vote Dem.
85% of voters wanted America to become less liberal (after Clinton).
15% of voters wanted America to become more liberal.

Those 15% "America should be more liberal" voters were not convinced that their vote was best represented by Gore.

Nader only got 3% of the 2000 vote. That means that 12% of the "America should be more liberal" either voted for Gore, or did not vote.

3 out of 100 dems voted Green. 7 out of 100 dems voted for Bush.

[Tactical Progressive]

95. There's not "a dime's worth of difference"

between selling this country and everything it stands for down the river into hell, and sanctimonious left-wing ideologues who need to think they are principled more than they need to be principled, be honest or understand politics.

I don't want greens to vote for Democrats in this election. They should just stay home, or better yet be honest about themselves and vote for Bush outright. Maybe taking direct responsibility for their 'politics' will build character.

Democrats should just shift farther to the center because it is counter-productive having to worry about trusting the people who are supposed to have your back.

[GreenInNC]

102. why should I be limited

to who I can vote for? Gore did not convince me to vote for him. Should I have been a lemming and voted for him anyway? No!

[sabbat hunter]

105. Tennesse

i went back and looked. no president has won an election without winning his home state in modern times.
If Gore had carried his home state, then the fiasco in florida would be moot.

Hells lets face it, except for McGovern in 1972, even the losing candidate still carries his home state.

while nader did take some votes away from gore, it was more of Gore's poor campaigning and his failure to win his home state that cost him the election than the green party

peace
david
:hippie:

[Tweed]

2. "It is John Kerry's fault" and you don't back that up at all

Would you care to explain how it is John Kerry's fault in a reply?

[Meldread]

6. I wasn't blaming it all on him....

I was blaming it on the DLC and listing members. (I.E. contributors to the problem.)

[billbuckhead]

23. Nadir lied about Al Gore and Democrats when he said 2 partys are the same

Ironically, this was basically the only soundbite of Ralph's the corporate media played on TV. The 2000Nadir campaign is the manifestation of useful idiots in action. Progressive people who voted for Raplh could have stopped the Bush pResidency with a vote for Gore. Iraq would have never happened. Maybe 9-11 wouldn't have happened. Maybe so many jobs wouldn't have been lost. Probably there would be less pollution. Probably the rest of the world wouldn't hate us so much.
Some consumer advocate!

[mdmc]

79. most people could care less about politics

There is a difference between the parties, one is less evil then the other.

Nader voters voted for "good" over "the lesser of two evils".

Without Nader, without Dean, this may have been a Leiberman v. Graham primary.

[lams712]

104. NADER TOLD THE TRUTH!!!!

THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND A DLC-LED DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!!! The DLC is basically a corporately funded pro-choice Republican group. The Democratic Party traded in its principles to get corporate money. I would recommend the book
LOCKED IN THE CABINET, by Robert Reich, Clinton's Secretary of Labor during his first term. It gives a very lucid insider's account of how the Clinton Administration's rightward drift led to its ultimate betrayal of basic Democratic principles.

The DLC is interested in power for power's sake, and has no real guiding priciples except to echo what Republicans say.

[Terwilliger]

3. Nader? Demonized? Where??

I've never heard of that.

[SaddenedDem]

4. You're right, of course, but...

I hope you have your asbestos suit on, because you will be flamed and ripped to shreds by the folks here who are so blind they cannot see.

You're not alone, though......

[Meldread]

8. I know. :P

Flames don't scare me because I bite back. :P

[BeyondGeography]

7. How about a clarification

"Dems are the fastest shrinking party while the third parties combine, equal or pass the Democrats in number."

There are so many problems with that statement I don't know where to begin.

[HFishbine]

13. True

If one says third parties and independents.

[BeyondGeography]

21. Independents are unaffiliated

You know, they vote for candidates representing all parties, including Democrats.

I'd try again.

[Dookus]

15. yeah...

that one strikes me as odd, too.

Isn't the Democratic party the largest party in the United States? Do the greens, libertarians and natural lifers really outnumber Democrats? I find that hard to believe.

[EXE619K]

9. Here we go again.....

Democrats blaming Nader as if he is the only reason for Gore's downfall.

It's been over three-years since 2000.

What has the Democratic party done to bring the Greens back into their "Big tent".

Sad. Very Sad.

[BeyondGeography]

12. What hasn't George Bush done to convince you

there are major differences between Reuplicans and Democrats?

It's the "Green" party, right? Kyoto, Arctic drilling, opposition to all fuel economy standards.

Sad. Very sad.

[EXE619K]

19. Did I mention GWB anywhere?

I'm talking about the Democratic Party.

Not the Republican party.

Assess your your faults first, before passing judgement upon others.

Clean your own house first, before attempting to clean other people's houses.

No house cleaning since 2000.

That's my point.

[BeyondGeography]

Nader has been proven WRONG

There are life-altering differences between the two major parties. His claim to the contrary was the underlying premise of his 2000 campaign.

Nature is taking its course, and the house that is being cleaned is the mentality that produced 2 million votes for Nader in 2000.

That's my point.

[EXE619K]

38. Intead of trying to understand why the Greens have left the DNC platform..

All I hear is "Nader is evil" meme coming from the Democratic Party.

It's the same mentality year after year.

"You need to understand us and we need not understand you because we're bigger!" mentality.

It's true that The third Party presence in US politics is almost non-exsistent to really challenge the "Big Two".

So, if the Two-Party system cannot figure out their own problems that's their fault. If the Two party system refuses to understand why there is bleeding within their ranks.....it's their fault for making it so.

No need to blame anyone else.

And that, is the irrefutable point to consider.

[BeyondGeography]

53. More generalities

How about a specific policy difference between the Greens and the Dems, and a well-reasoned argument about how voting Green will advance said policy position better than working for change within the Democratic party.

It's an argument that can be made, you just haven't made it yet.

[EXE619K]

75. There are many reasons that the Greens differ from Dems.

Interventionist foreign policy, Domestic policies supported by corporate special interests, Instant run-off voting......

There will always be dissent from within any party.

And that's the reason for people to support thrid parties.

How many times have the Two party system tried to reach out to the Greens and the third parties? How many times have the Democrats tried to "reach-out" to the Greens in order to garner their support in this year's election? How many times have the Democrats tried to be inclusive with the Greens even in the local politics arena(San Fransico/Gavin Newsome is a perfect example).

The fact is clear. The democratic party establishment does not want changes in their influence/stranglehold on the national and local politics. I have not seen even ONE DNC sponsored symposium or the like to mend the bridges to the Greens. It's always "Nader is responsible" or the classic "They should support our candidate because we're the lesser of two evils".

Politics as usual...that's the difference. Rather than trying to see their own faults to the attrition rate in their own ranks, they simply put the blame on others.

There are many Greens that will vote for Dems this year. How many times have you seen the Dems return the favor? Even at the local level? How many times have you seen the DNC sponsor a Green candidate in local politics in our fine nation?

That's the difference.

[mdmc]

80. difference

One party is the lesser of two evils. The Greens were good.
Nader voters chose good over the lesser of two evils.
Most Nader voters I know would not have voted if he wasn't running.

More Dems voted for Bush than Nader.

[Dr Fate]

10. He should do the right thing and endorse the DEMS in 2004...

...can Ralph help us unite progressives, liberals and moderates???

[Meldread]

20. Why should he?

He has no reason to. I don't believe anyone should endorse someone else if they don't believe in them. That hurts democracy. I support letting whoever wants to run for President to run for President. Why? Because I *AM* a Democrat, because I *BELIEVE* in giving people choices not limiting them or taking them away. I believe in Democratic Values, and it is a shame that a party that calls themselves "Democrats" work against the very values it claims to stand for.

[Dr Fate]

25. Chief Justice Scalia

n/t

[mzmolly]

11. I agree it's not Naders *fault* I just dont like the guy is all.

I also dont feel he represents the Green Party very well. :shrug:

[KC21304]

16. Money was funneled to Nader's campaign from GOP

which was used by Nader to broadcast his message. This message was there is no difference between Gore and Bush. This was a lie. He should have known better. I don't know if this was Nader's fault or not. Maybe it was Clinton's penis at work again.

[Calico4000]

106. Hahaha

This from a Kerry supporter. Are you aware how much repub money Kerry has taken in? If not, you might want to research your candidate a little bit.

[jpgpenn]

17. might not be his "falt" but he played a key role in the country...

living thru the hell we have been for the last 3 years!

[GreenInNC]

103. 10 million Democrats

Ten million Democrats voted for Bush, over 100,000 in Florida alone. If the Dems could get there own to vote for their nominee then they wouldn't need to whine about our nominee.

[FlashHarry]

22. Nader: "No difference between Republicans and Democrats."

Uh huh. Let's see him try that one this time 'round. Oh, and if you don't think that at least a thousand people in Florida who voted Nader wouldn't have voted for Gore, had Ralphie not been an option, you're seriously deluded. Remember, Bush effectively *won* Florida by fewer than 600 votes.

That being said, yes, of course, Gore should've won in a landslide--his campaign blew it, big time. Yes, had the over votes been counted, it wouldn't have been close. Yes, had the voter rolls not been stripped of thousands of legitimate voters, Gore would be in the WH now. But, you can't tell me that, had Nader not campaigned in Florida--as he had promised, Gore wouldn't have won the state and the Presidency.

If you want a third party, vote for one at the local level. Build it from the ground up. A vote for a 'progressive' third party in a national election is a vote for the GOP, any way you slice it.

[JailForBush]

31. The difference between Democrats and Republicans...

95% of Republicans support George W. Bush compared to 90% of Democrats. Yeah, that's a big difference.

[wyldwolf]

34. Again, I ask you to prove one of your statements..

[JailForBush]

36. OK, how many Democrats voted against the war in Afghanistan?

How many Democrats voted against Gulf War II?

[FlashHarry]

41. First of all...

...the war in Afghanistan was legitimate (however poorly managed). Second of all, the craven Dems who voted for the GWII war resolution should be taken to task. However, there is more to this than simply the war. Try Jobs, Health Care and the Environment. A third party candidate has zero chance of winning the White House. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Zip. If you want Bush to be a one-termer, like his dad, you will vote for the Democratic nominee, whether or not you agree with every single policy point in his or her platform It's that simple.

You do--for the time being--have a choice. Vote your conscience. But know that your actions have consequences that may outweigh your individual philosophy.

[wyldwolf]

45. And I might add...

..the Democratic party is made up of more than just the dems in congress.

In fact, the rest of the party leadership FAR OUTNUMBERS those in congress. So the 90% figure given is bogus.

[JailForBush]

55. I live in King County, where the Democrats who are in bed with

corporations are practically 100%. Draw your own conclusions.

[wyldwolf]

99. So?

In my county, they're not.

Does King County set the agenda for the rest of us?

[JailForBush]

51. Second of all...

"First of all, the war in Afghanistan was legitimate (however poorly managed)."

No it wasn't.

"Second of all, the craven Dems who voted for the GWII war resolution should be taken to task."

No argument there.

"However, there is more to this than simply the war. Try Jobs, Health Care and the Environment."

Ah, yes, just more items the Democrats have shown no leadership on.

"A third party candidate has zero chance of winning the White House. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Zip."

And a Democratic candidate has no chance of reforming the White House. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Zip.

"If you want Bush to be a one-termer, like his dad, you will vote for the Democratic nominee, whether or not you agree with every single policy point in his or her platform It's that simple."

And if I want REFORM, I'll vote for the lesser of evils (the Democractic candidate), but I'll also hold him up as an example of why there's no hope without a third party.

"You do--for the time being--have a choice. Vote your conscience. But know that your actions have consequences that may outweigh your individual philosophy."

Right back at ya.

[FlashHarry]

61. Afghanistan

Ok, let's spell it out: The terrorists who attacked this country on 9/11 were trained in Afghanistan with the full knowledge and support of the Taliban, who refused to cooperate in giving them up. The war there was certainly justified on those grounds alone.

However, the war was prosecuted very poorly. High altitude bombing was indiscriminate and resulted in a high level of civilian casualties. Plus, the totally illegitimate war in Iraq has distracted us from and drained resources away from finishing the job in Afghanistan. The Taliban is returning. The poppy fields are blooming. And the western-backed government has now been reduced to the city-state of Kabul. This will be a problem for years to come, unless we quit Iraq and rebuild Afghanistan.

[JailForBush]

65. LOL

"Ok, let's spell it out: The terrorists who attacked this country on 9/11 were trained in Afghanistan with the full knowledge and support of the Taliban, who refused to cooperate in giving them up. The war there was certainly justified on those grounds alone."

So you believe the White House/Pentagon line, eh? You've totally discounted all the conspiracy theories and go along with George Bush's mission of revenge.

"However, the war was prosecuted very poorly. High altitude bombing was indiscriminate and resulted in a high level of civilian casualties."

No kidding.

"Plus, the totally illegitimate war in Iraq has distracted us from and drained resources away from finishing the job in Afghanistan. The Taliban is returning. The poppy fields are blooming. And the western-backed government has now been reduced to the city-state of Kabul. This will be a problem for years to come, unless we quit Iraq and rebuild Afghanistan."

You're on the right track. Don't forget the fact that the war in Afghanistan likely inspired more anti-American terrorists. There's also a little matter of a border nation with nuclear weapons. We came dangerously close to igniting a nuclear war between Pakistan and India. That alone was grounds for a more rational strategy.

And what about those rumors we've been hearing about vast oil reserves in Central Asia. Do you suppose the war in Afghanistan might have been planned far in advance?

Nah!

[FlashHarry]

69. So, you believe the conspiracy theories? Enlighten me.

The closest to believing them for me goes like this: BushCo had advanced warning of Al Qaeda activity in August, 2001--possibly including their plans to use planes as missiles--and did nothing about it, because they were too busy ramming their far-right agenda through Congress and planning the war in Iraq. That, I would believe. However, that doesn't change the fact that we were attacked by Al Qaeda, who were nurtured by the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

Just out of curiosity, what would you have done?

[JailForBush]

82. What would I have done?

It's hard to say, when the White House is sitting on all the relevant information. But there's no question what my #1 agenda would be: Discovering the truth about September 11.

If it was indeed the work of Al Qaeda, and nothing BUT Al Qaeda, I might have staged a military attack. But if Republicans (and Democrats) were on board in any manner whatsoever, I'd be waging war against them.

[diamondsoul]

96. Why would you choose

Military action in response to an international crime??

AlQaeda is not a Government and the Taliban merely allowed them to exist inside the Afghani border. The proper response to that is to call upon international law enforcement to assist in investigating the crime and seeking out the responsible parties, then engage the UN in how to address the Taliban's condoning of terrorist activity.

[wyldwolf]

42. Prove this assertion:

95% of Republicans support George W. Bush compared to 90% of Democrats. Yeah, that's a big difference.

Don't go off topic to a side show.

Prove your point.

[JailForBush]

56. Look at the votes for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Look at the

frightening corporate agenda in "liberal" Washington State.

[wyldwolf]

100. Your examples fall far short of "90%" --- sorry!

[FlashHarry]

37. Totally untrue, and you know it.

According to Russert on MTP this morning, 90% of Republicans support Bush, but only 12% of Democrats do. A little lower than your 90% figure, don't you think?

[JailForBush]

40. I'm talking about ELECTED Democrats, the people we vote for.

Nader said there's no significant difference in VOTING for Democrats and Republicans. Depending on how you look at it, he wasn't that far off the mark. I'd certainly rather have a Democrat-controlled bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., but I sometimes wonder if my efforts would be better spent on something entirely different.

The Democrats did a great job of defending the Pledge of Allegiance. Why can't they put that same passion into anything else?

[FlashHarry]

44. Perhaps you should have been more clear.

Here is your original statement: 95% of Republicans support George W. Bush compared to 90% of Democrats. Yeah, that's a big difference.

[JailForBush]

58. If you've been following this thread, it should have been perfectly clear.

Learn how to put things in context.

[FlashHarry]

63. I will. If you learn to back up your blanket assertions. N/T

[JailForBush]

66. I did. N/T

[FlashHarry]

71. Er, no you didn't.

Here's the entire text of your post, title included:

The difference between Democrats and Republicans...

95% of Republicans support George W. Bush compared to 90% of Democrats. Yeah, that's a big difference.

Unless your evidence was posted telepathically, I see nothing to back up your wild claim.

[JailForBush]

83. Like I said, you should have been following the thread. Someone critcized

Ralph Nader for suggesting there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats. I pointed out that Democrats have done little to oppose Bush. I was clearly referring to the same Democrats Nader was referring to - ELECTED officials.

[wyldwolf]

48. We've elected mayors, governors, etc. who are democrats...

..who did not vote for your pet issues.

Your "90%" figure doesn't add up.

[JailForBush]

59. You lost me. Who's "we"? N/T

[wyldwolf]

98. I don't know, guy, perhaps the same "we" you mentioned in post 40?

"WE" = people who vote democrat?

[KC21304]

33. Thanks for the clear, logical argument.

:thumbsup:

[Terwilliger]

47. Maybe Gore could have been better about the drug-war

since 90,000 votes denied were all about the fact that they were "criminals" because of past felonies...most cases the felony being drug use or possession

So, I guess Gore killed himself.

[aquart]

24. Nader? NADER??????

You wanna whitewash him, have fun.

But he's dirt on the ground to me.

[dawn]

26. I agree, somewhat.

I voted for Gore in 2000, but know many who voted for Nader because of what you mentioned.

The Democratic Party does not own its voters. People can choose to vote for whoever they want. And yes, many people think that Democrats and Republicans aren't much different. That's why so many people end up voting third party or, more likely, just stay home like I used to do.

I don't actually think Democrats are just Republican lite. It's just that, come GE time, the chosen nominees usually try to play it "safe," so they can get that elusive swing voter. I think that's a mistake. I don't see Repubs doing that. They stand up for what they believe in, as misguided as we may think it is, and don't back down. We should do the same. (OK, the Repubs also manipulate people and use fear to get more votes. I don't recommend sinking low like that.)

[wyldwolf]

27. How about some proof of this?

Folks have to remember that the Democrats are the fastest shrinking party in the United States while the third parties, combine, equal or pass the Democrats in number. Why? Because the Democrats keep moving further and further to the right leaving their base behind, and their base is starting to shop elsewhere.

I assume you have some factual statistics to support this?

[Meldread]

57. Not on hand, but...

It was reported by the DLC back in 2003.

[Dookus]

67. well

perhaps you could take a little time and provide the data?

[sadiesworld]

28. Someone enlighten me here...

wasn't Dean a fairly conservative governor? It seems to me that Dean simply hopped on the progressive/populist bandwagon a bit earlier than the others (excluding Kucinich, Sharpton and possibly Gephart). I would hope that this is more than primay campaign talk from both Kerry AND Dean.

[Meldread]

60. Yes and no.

Dean's pretty liberal on social issues and pretty conservative on economic issues. That's "traditional" conservative by the way. Big difference. He believes in balanced budgets, and doing what he has to do to make sure it's balanced.

[JailForBush]

29. Gore/Nader, Gore/Nader, blah, blah, blah

As far as I'm concerned, there are no innocent parties here. I voted for Nader - and I don't apologize. Al Gore disgusted me, largely because of his connections to the "Education Mafia." I researched an amazing story about Gore and put it on my website, not because I wanted Bush to win, but because I wanted to use the campaign to focus attention on public education.

To my amazement, no conservative groups touched my story. Then I discovered that one of Seattle's leading right-wingers bankrolled Terry Bergeson's first election campaign. She's Washington State's Superintendent of Public Instruction and is generally considered a liberal. What's going on here?

I continued to defend Nader from Democrat's attacks after the election, because their attacks were so lame. But I kept my eyes open. Finally, I discovered evidence that convinced me that Nader's corrupt. Amazingly, the evidence linked him to the Education Mafia via the Seattle School Board and the Green Party of Seattle.

Apparently, Nader is indeed a corporate whore. What makes it all so humorous is that Democrats could have nailed Nader with substance, rather than the ridiculous arguments that most of us just laughed off, if they had a clue about education.

The sad thing is that people are STILL too busy debating Gore versus Nader to focus on more substantial issues. Al Gore and Ralph Nader both exploited children, but no one cares about children. So all we hear about is Al Gore versus Ralph Nader, until some of us wonder if there's any point in voting at all. More precisely, what's the point in voting in the presidential election if voters are going to ignore every other election?

[wyldwolf]

32. Geez... you admit to "researching" a story that could hurt Gore ...

...and express disappointment "no conservative groups touched my story."

:eyes:

next time, just send it to Drudge and cut out the middleman (that would be you.)

[JailForBush]

35. Damn Right

I blow the whistle on ANYONE who's corrupt. I created an entire website to blast Bush - http://www.jail4bush.org/ You can read my Al Gore expose at http://www.geobop.com/education/People/Gore/ It's really an amazing story - made even more amazing by the fact that Republicans didn't touch it, even when the race was so close. Were they in bed with Al Gore?

I'll be putting a Ralph Nader hit piece online soon, too. No one who exploits children is worth voting for, regardless of what party they belong to.

[wyldwolf]

39. Good. But if you really want traction, send them to Drudge...

[JailForBush]

43. Drudge is just another corporate whore, like Gore and Nader. N/T

[wyldwolf]

49. But you want people to see your little stories...

...so send them to someone who can better achieve your objective.

[JailForBush]

54. I sent my findings to a number of sources, both conservative and liberal.

They weren't interested - probably because they were too busy exploiting children. Just look at all the education posts here at DU - all thirteen of them.

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[bluestateguy]

46. nader cost gore florida and new hampshire

Your argument is correct--for at least 48 out of the 50 states. However, for 1 state, your argument is simply wrong, and for another your argument is not conclusive. Just winning one of these states could have swung the election.

The VNS exit polls showed that nader voters would have voted 47% for Gore, 21% for Bush and 30% would have stayed home. Do the math. In Florida, that means that out of the 97,488 Nader voters 45,819 would have voted for Gore, 20,472 would have voted for Bush and 29,246 would have stayed home. Bush "won" Florida by 537 votes, so without Nader in the race you have a Gore victory of 25,347 votes. There is even some wiggle room there for a margin of error in the poll.

In New Hampshire, 22,188 people voted for Nader which cost Gore 10,428 votes and cost Bush 4659 votes, resulting in a hypothetical tally of

Bush 278,218
Gore 276,776

Close enough for a recount, and within the margin of the polls error. Bush still might have won New Hampshire, but Florida cannot be denied.

But what does Nader care? He got himself a nice tax cut. It's not like he has to live with the consequences of a Bush Administration.

[FlashHarry]

50. Well-put. N/T

[Terwilliger]

52. So, if a thief steals a watch

the blame is on the eyewitness?

[bluestateguy]

62. I don't know what you're talking about

[arwalden]

76. I'm Having Difficulty With That One Too...

don't feel bad. You're not alone in your confusion.

-- Allen

[Terwilliger]

87. of course you don't

you just call it two thieves, and blame one of them for the theft while the other one helped

doesn't matter that the security guard was asleep

[arwalden]

94. No. The Security Guard Was Betrayed.

[hedgetrimmer]

84. Sometimes things need to be spelled out for our members...

Bush stole the election (watch), (Gore won) why blame the eyewitness (Nader)?

there was many "what ifs" in the outcome of the 2000 election... the bottom line is that there was thievery and that is the true attack against not only the democrat party but the citizens of this country... we were and are all eyewitness' to the crime, why are we not then held responsible for the outcome? for we let it happen... we believed in out owr system and did not call a thief a thief...(sure some folks did, but not all of us as a people)

[arwalden]

85. Complicity. I Blame The Eyewitness For Holding & Restraining The Victim...

... rolling up his sleeve and beckoning the thief to "come and get it".

The thief is still the thief. Those who are complicit are... well... equally to blame. Enablers is another word that comes to mind.

-- Allen

Edit: omitted ampersand in subject line

[Terwilliger]

89. ENABLE: (verb) What the Democratic party does for the Republican party

that's ENABLE

[bluestateguy]

86. The "democrat" party

I am always suspicious of arguments framed with that kind of description, but anyway, Nader was not the eyewitness, the news media was, and they did not do their job.

Ralph Nader was like the accomplice at the store deliberately distracting the other customers while the watch was stolen.

[Terwilliger]

90. Umm...it was "stolen" while Gore and other Dems were fighting them

squabbling over counties, when a statewide recount was in order

Oh, but no, blame Nader again.,..after all, Nader was the one aware of the mass disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida, it was NADER who conceded on behalf of the Democratic party and gave the stolen "election" to Bush and his crime family.

It was ALL NADER'S FAULT!!!

[arwalden]

93. I'm Thinking It Was A Typo... But It Raised A Red-Flag With Me Too

-- Allen

[arwalden]

74. Thank You, BSG!!

An excellent message with FACTS.

-- Allen

[JailForBush]

64. This is like a dog chasing its tail...

Democrats criticizing Ralph Nader reminds me of a dog chasing its tail. Ralph Nader isn't just an idiot or an arrogant spoiler - he's corrupt. But people wouldn't have voted for him if Democrats weren't corrupt, too. Moreover, Democrats might have nailed Nader with a solid argument if they had done some serious research. Instead, they just fired off arguments that sounded very self-serving, even childish. Arguments like, "What choice have you got?" and "Nader lives in a nice house."

Here's where it gets interesting: I've blasted the Green Party of Seattle - notably corporate whores Brita Butler-Wall and Sally Soriano - many times on a variety of chatboards, and Democrats never chime in, nor do Greens defend their own. What is everyone afraid of - the truth?

[corporatewhore]

68. i know nader has skeletons but he is not running as a green david cobb is

this tim the

[JailForBush]

81. But he was supported by the Green Party in 2000, and he and the Green

Party of Seattle are both linked to the Seattle School Board. Very interesting.

[mdmc]

70. Clinton and Gore ran an excessive drug war

Its not Nader's fault.

If Nader hadn't run, Gore would have won.
If Bush hadn't run, Gore would have won.

I didn't vote for Gore.

[mvd]

72. It's hard to say

Nader is certainly not the only factor involved in Gore not officially winning Florida, but who knows how many votes he took away from Gore with his "no difference between Gore and Bush" assertion.

[Octafish]

73. Gore, the Democrat, got more votes.

Bush, the Republican, got less.

That demonstrates the Democratic message was the most popular in 2000, contrary to what some believe.

And Nader, the Green, got even less. However, it was enough to cost us -- the Democrats -- Florida and New Hampshire.

So now we have Nader, the Independent. Who gives a hoot?

My priority is to beat Bush in November.

Do Greens want to help?

Or have Greens liked the last three years?

[Zhade]

77. Gore. Did. Not. Lose.

Almost four years later, and people are still buying the media spin.

I'll say it again: Gore did not lose. The election was stolen.

1) Tens of thousands of Democratic voters in Florida were illegally disenfranchised of their votes. How do we know they were Dems? The paperwork used in the name-scrubbing operation had their party status listed. (See Greg Palast for more on this - http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=2)

2) Illegal stoppage of recount in Miami-Dade, where Roger Stone's operatives harassed the elections staff to the point of shutting down the operation.

3) Blackboxed election sites, with Volusia county at one point giving Gore -16,000+ votes. (Negative votes!) This was caught, but what other electronic voting machine "errors" weren't caught?

4) A one-time-only, limited-time-offer USSC decision decided in favor of b*sh, using a twisted logic involving the Equal Protection clause - when, of course, tens of thousands of Florida voters were not protected by the same clause.

I could go on. My point is, Gore NEVER LOST until the election was yanked away from him through illegal means. 2000 was a coup d'etat, and it amazes me that there are still so many people who don't realize or remember this.

[Iverson]

97. You're expecting people to read?!

Sheesh! You and Meldread.

Oh, they can read all right, but not at the mention of Nader. It's just asking too much. Brain off, foam on, and away we go!

[poskonig]

88. It is partly *my* fault for promoting Nader in 2000.

It was my first presidential election and I didn't listen to the warnings of older Democrats about how the Republicans behave in office. I live in Illinois, but still feel guilty about it.

[Dr Fate]

91. Same here. I voted Nader in 2000- I bought the "big lie"...

...I believed the "big lie" that "Democrats & Republicans are the same"

We all found out the hard way that that was a Nader lie.

He can redeem himself by helping progressives and moderates FIGHT BUSH. I think he would make a great head of the EPA, FCC or FDA...

[Goldberg]

92. It was a combination of factors, including:

Nader, The Supreme Court, and Jeb Bush in Florida...as they all screwed Gore out of the election and now we're stuck with the Bush Crime Family in there. :(

[lams712]

101. Meldread, you are right on the button with....

...your post. I voted for Nader in 2000 out of frustration for the lack of leadership and right-ward drift of the Democratic Party. I think Kerry might be liberal enough for me to support. Despite some questionable votes (No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Iraqi War, welfare reform, etc.) his lifetime numbers from Americans for Democratic Action are solidly liberal. I will probably support him if he gets the nomination, but I am going to wait and see how he runs his general election campaign. If he runs a "Republican-lite" campaign, he can forget my support. But, if he keeps up his current primary campaign, I believe I could support him.