Why Ralph Nader wanted to see Gore lose in 2000 (a reminder)

[onehandle]

...Nader and the idiots who voted for him were not solely responsible for putting George W. Bush into the White House. A number of other factors also strengthened Bush and weakened Gore (including a few self-inflicted wounds by the Gore campaign), and even so Gore still did come out ahead of Bush in the popular vote. Without the thousands of votes that Nader took away from Gore in Florida (where Nader got 97,000 votes!), Gore would have carried the state without ambiguity, even after the "accidental" Republican purge of black voters from the rolls and the butterfly ballot fiasco, and gotten the electoral votes necessary to put him over the top. But it seems clear that if there had been a fair recount in Florida, Gore would have (just barely) won the state anyway. Many groups and individuals in the US share responsibility for letting the Republicans steal that election. We shouldn't blame only Ralph Nader.

On the other hand, Nader shouldn't be allowed to escape his responsibility for the outcome either. Given everything else, there is no question that the spectacularly ill-advised Nader campaign played a crucial role in determining the outcome. If Nader had not siphoned votes away from Gore in crucial battleground states, then with everything else being equal, Gore would have won, and Bush would have lost. The result of the Nader campaign was to help put Bush in the White House. Nader and many of his supporters have gone through various logical contortions since 2000 to try to pretend this wasn't true, but anyone who is fooled by these arguments is just not facing reality.

http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-ralph-nader-wanted-to-see-gore.html
_________________

All Bulworth, No Rhythm
Will Ralph Nader become Al Gore's worst nightmare? By Jay Heinrichs

<....> If California tips Green enough, Bush could win the state and the whole damn election.

Which, Nader confided to Outside in June, wouldn't be so bad. When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush." Not that he actually thinks the man he calls "Bush Inc." deserves to be elected: "He'll do whatever industry wants done." The rumpled crusader clearly prefers to sink his righteous teeth into Al Gore, however: "He's totally betrayed his 1992 book," Nader says. "It's all rhetoric." Gore "groveled openly" to automakers, charges Nader, who concludes with the sotto voce realpolitik of a ward heeler: "If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win." <....>

http://outside.away.com/outside/magazine/200008/200008camp_nader1.html

[leftstreet]

1. UnRec

[peggygirl]

30. Well, maybe it's time to thank Nader for not giving us Lieberman? nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. If Gore wanted the votes of the left he should have sought them.

Instead, he turned to the "moderates".

[Fumesucker]

5. +1

[CrispyQ]

7. Fuckin' A

I voted for Nader. My last vote prior to 2000 was Carter in 1980. If it hadn't been for Nader on the Green ticket, I would have stayed home in 2000, too. The dems need to learn that appealing to moderates & the right is not the way to keep their base. I suspect they are in for another hard lesson this fall.

[EFerrari]

33. No kidding. And they're still blaiming NADER for that.

:shrug:

[invictus]

37. +1

[KingFlorez]

3. Nader is a phony

And probably on the payroll for the right.

[Oregone]

4. 3D Chessmasters, everywhere I turn

[DevonRex]

6. Great post. Thank you. Nader WANTED Bush to win. And he did what

he could to ensure Bush's victory. Fuck Nader.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. It is time to let it go.

The deed is done, history gave us a long dunk in the septic tank, Bush has actually been gracious in retirement, Gore has been an effective voice for climate protection, and Nader is in disgrace.

We have some problems. We'll always have problems. But the way to deal with them is prospectively. Release Nader and Bush and the whole sorry decade to history. Our focus this year should be on getting President Obama and the Congress back on course, and making sure that the prophesied Big Republican Comeback fails.

A decade of disappointment is finally behind us; and we have some big, ambitious plans ahead of us: An energy revolution. Restoring social justice. Remedying the damage we have inflicted on the world. Abolishing war and uniting the world's people in common purpose. Advancing the progress of Science, the Arts, and extending the Human Frontier. The Moon, Mars, the Solar System, the stars themselves. The nature of life. The fabric of the universe.

The old, naive work-hard-for-a-reward philosophy has been superseded by a renewed consciousness of our ability to create. I will no longer accept apocalypticism, pessimism, cynicism, and nihilism, from myself if no one else. If we are indeed doomed to Oblivion, let us at least leave a record of rebellious optimism for the Gods to read and ponder.

But I don't think we're doomed to oblivion, or anything else, at all.

It's time to let go of the past and meet the future.

--d!

[redqueen]

14. This didn't just come from out of the blue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7820056

[beardown]

9. Thanks for the reminder

That Clinton's penis is to repubs what Nader is to some dems.

You've got stalled health care reform, a surge in Afghanistan, a renewed Patriot Act, and a president that surrounded himself with Wall Street hacks and you're harping about people voting for a progressive candidate back in 2000, instead of a ticket that had Lieberman one heart beat away from the presidency.

[leeroysphitz]

16. +1

[hfojvt]

42. good point

we really dodged a bullet there by getting Cheney instead of Lieberman.

[Mudoria]

10. Thanks Ralph... you fucking moron.

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. Unrec. This is 2010.

Rehashing the past, especially a decade old past, isn't going to do anything to solve the problems of the present (no matter who caused them, they are the problems of the present), nor the problems of the future.

[onehandle]

17. A bunch of pro-Nader articles showed up this afternoon.

Yes. It's 2010.

Nader should be forgotten. Completely.

[NeoGreen]

12. Who Really Spoiled in 2000?

The Supreme Court Spoiled:
Al Gore won the 2000 election. George W. Bush became President when a biased US Supreme Court allowed election manipulation by Florida Republicans.

Al Gore Spoiled:
Gore ran a weak campaign with no clear message. He failed to defeat Bush in the debates and even lost his home state of Tennessee. Millions of Democrats voted for Bush compared to the few hundred thousand who voted for Nader.

Democratic Senators Spoiled:
When the Black Caucus challenged Bush’s election victory in January 2001, not one Democratic Senator stood up in support. Senate Democrats failed to push for an investigation of the Florida vote debacle.

The Democratic Party Spoiled:
For many years, Democrats never objected when officials removed African American and other voters from the voter rolls in Florida and other states. Why didn’t the Democrats sue when 90,000 Florida voters were disqualified earlier in 2000? Why were Democrats (including Gore) silent about disqualified votes in the weeks after the election?

Don't Believe the Lies!

Lie #1: “This is a two-party system.”
Nothing in the US Constitution limits the number of political parties. Democracy means free participation, in the party of your choice.

Lie #2: “Green candidates steal votes from Democrats”
Greens have no power to steal votes from Democratic candidates, because no candidate owns anyone’s vote except for his or her own.

Lie #3: “If Nader hadn’t run, everyone who voted for him would have voted for Gore!”
According to exit polls, Nader’s support came from Democrats, Republicans, independents, and many others. Many would not have voted for Gore if Nader hadn’t run, and some voters might not have voted at all.

Top Democrats Know That the "Spoiler" Charge is a Lie!

Al From, chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, wrote in Blueprint Magazine (1-24-01) that according to their own exit polls, Bush would have beat Gore by one percentage point if Nader hadn’t run in 2000.

[ipaint]

22. Don't forget this:

"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debates," it declared in October 1988, "because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions."

The CPD was launched in 1987 by the then-national chairs of the Republican and Democratic parties, Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul Kirk, to promote the interests of the two major parties and to ward off third-party interlopers. Mr. Fahrenkopf and Mr. Kirk head the CPD today. "Mr. Fahrenkopf indicated that the new Commission on Presidential Debates was not likely to look with favor on including third-party candidates in the debates," the New York Times reported. "Mr. Kirk was less equivocal, saying he personally believed the panel should exclude third-party candidates from the debates." Mr. Kirk explained: "As a party chairman, it's my responsibility to strengthen the two-party system."

Through the years, the CPD has proved itself better at excluding challengers to the "two-party system" than at establishing firm and objective standards to promote real debates and big audiences.
Recent history suggests that nothing sparks interest in the debates like the inclusion of third-party candidates. In 1992, when Mr. Perot was included (both major parties calculated it would benefit them), the three presidential debates were viewed by record-breaking TV audiences, averaging 90 million people, with the audience growing for each successive debate. In 1996, with Mr. Perot excluded by the CPD, the debates had shrinking audiences that averaged only 41 million viewers. In November, most eligible voters didn't vote.

This year, the CPD is barring outsider candidates like Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan since they lack 15 percent poll support -- a barrier that would have excluded Mr. Perot in 1992 and Mr. Ventura in 1998. Mr. Perot received 7 percent to 9 percent in four polls before the 1992 debates, Mr. Ventura got 10 percent before the Minnesota debate.

Yet a recent Zogby poll of 1,000 likely voters found that roughly 60 percent of the public wants Mr. Nader and Mr. Buchanan included.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2725

[Confusious]

28. Sorry, but about Lie #1

Lie #1: “This is a two-party system.”
Nothing in the US Constitution limits the number of political parties. Democracy means free participation, in the party of your choice.


No it doesn't. But the limitations can be built in. A "winner take all" system is always going to have two big players.

That's why the system needs to be changed.

[Statistical]

29. +1. The Nader stole Gore Presidence meme is simplistic at best.

In reality it is idiotic.

It is the same logic the RIAA uses to assume every pirated song would have been bought.

Many Nader voters would simply have not voted for ANYONE.

[invictus]

38. +1

[G_j]

13. happy to unrec

got a life?

[Happy Hippy]

15. .

I know that I am new here, but from what I have read thus far this post seems kind of out of place. Most of DU feels pretty warm. But to encourage friendly discussion amongst peers (democrats) why would you start off by labeling people as idiots who voted for Nader? If you asked one of them kindly, perhaps they would give you some logical explanation of why they voted for that gentleman. This is NOT a critique of your post, but it just seems a bit harsh compared to how most liberals would start a discussion. I don't think idiot was a great word choice, if that's your belief then maybe "misguided" would have been a better adjective to describe Nader voters. Also, I am not making any assumptions about Nader supporters, I am sure they have there own beliefs.

Just some food for thought.

-Happy Hippy

[Fumesucker]

19. This is a continuing argument that has been ongoing for over nine years now..

Hang around a while and you'll see this pop up every week or three..

Edited to add: You basically walked into the middle of the Hatsfield-McCoy feud, it makes about as much sense and has about as much chance of ending.

Oh, and just because someone considers themselves a Democrat by no means is an indication that they are a liberal, nobody is hated more by some Democrats than liberals/progressives/leftists.

Welcome to DU BTW..

[Romulox]

20. "Out of the mouths of babes..."!

"Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength" -Psalms 8, (KJV)

[Toasterlad]

24. If You Don't Start Cursing At People And Calling Them Stupid Soon, You're Gonna Get Eaten Alive.

That's how it works here.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Romulox]

18. Unrec. Al Gore was wrong; Ross Perot was right. nt

[Zoeisright]

21. Doesn't surprise me. Nader is a tool.

And so is anyone who voted for him.

This is a DEMOCRATIC board. NOT GREEN.

[Toasterlad]

23. My New Droid Won't Sync With My Home Email. God Damn You, Ralph Nader!!!

[upi402]

25. a couple problems in your argument

1) Gore was a pro-NAFTA corporatist. The current state of our government, and lack of opposition to corporatism, is proof that Nader had a point. Many knew it and Gore drove them to Nader. Nader's big crime was to recognize what would happen if corporatism took control of both parties. The OP protests that situation, though it's fact at this point.

2) Choicepoint (formerly DBT iirc) was a felon voter registration scrub lisy. It was not scrubbing blacks. It was a criminally pro-Republican firm that scrubbed anyone with any record with law enforcement off the voter registration list. It was even worse than your inaccurate accusations of racism.

This post is a good rant, but not valid. Your anger should be with Jebby, the Supreme Court, and Obama for not investigating the criminal BushCo.

[Swamp Rat]

26. *ahem!*

[frylock]

31. nice!

[LoZoccolo]

27. Thank you for this post; recommended.

:thumbsup: :kick:

[McCamy Taylor]

32. A thread bashing a third party splitter is less than zero at DEMOCRATIC Underground?

Have you folks lost your senses? Do you want to see celebrities file for public office for the sole purpose of electing the worst candidate in order to speed up the coming revolution---which is what Nader was all about? That is just another kind of fascism.

[EFerrari]

34. Wait, so citizens running for office in a democratic system is fasicsm?

That's unreal.

[Swamp Rat]

35. You make LiteByte Bandit angry

[DevonRex]

39. The Naderites are out in force today. Can't criticize their hero, you know.

:shrug:

[G_j]

40. Nader doesn't need to be the hero, for one to be tired of the ignorance

of people who insist on hating someone on the left, instead of acknowledging the acts of a RW Supreme Court, winger Jeb Bush and extreme voter suppression of blacks and others.

[grahamhgreen]

36. Remember the NAFTA!

[Uncle Joe]

43. Remember the corporate media!

[jpak]

41. Naderites are assholes

just sayin'!

:D