"Why Nader wanted to see Gore lose in 2000" by Jeff Weintraub

[hfojvt]

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

"No, 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."

Be sure to read the link to Gitln's articles

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/28/nader/index.html

From 28 October 2000, he totally nails it.

"Unsafe in any state
Ralph Nader's campaign is reckless, its justifications specious and its consequences possibly irreparable. But it does allow fundamentalist leftists to keep living in their dream world."

"Here we go again. The arguments for Nader's campaign are dubious, a vote for him reckless and the consequences of building him up severe and possibly irreversible. As I write, Nader strength in Oregon and Minnesota looks like enough to move those states into the Bush column; Nader could also matter in Wisconsin, Michigan, Washington, even California. The outcome might well be, with a few other states, catastrophic -- and not only for the next four years. Just as much of the ground lost to Reagan in the 1980s has never been regained -- repeat, never: not in 20 years, not on labor policy, not on the environment, not on income and wealth inequality, not on support for military goons in the poor countries -- the ground to be lost by a Republican victory is likely to stay lost. As for the arguments about what's to be gained by a big Nader turnout, they dissolve on inspection. "

[jgraz]

1. Please keep blaming Nader -- god forbid we should have to fix our broken elections

:banghead:

[ChenZhen]

2. Or our broken party.

[AuntPatsy]

3. Now is this a strawman argument or red herring?

[jgraz]

4. The Nader argument has ALWAYS been a red herring

One that the Rethugs are delighted to see us still propagate.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

5. Almost as delighted as they were

to fund the Nader campaign in the first place.

[jgraz]

8. The Rethugs have their caging lists ready to go for 08

But you just keep on "fucking" Ralphie.

[pnwmom]

14. Ralphie's votes would have been more than enough to counter

all the vote stealing in Florida, and they were the ONLY thing that was in the control of progressives.

But Nader got exactly what he stated that he wanted in the interview -- since he couldn't be President, he helped to choose Bush.

Is there something about his interview that you don't understand? He couldn't have been more clear -- a Bush Presidency, in his view, was preferable to Al Gore.

[Romulox]

20. You seem to be under the misapprehension that Nader votes legitimately "belonged" to Gore...

What a bizarre POV! :silly:

[frylock]

87. well played!

:applause:

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Not accordig to Al Fromm

Why is Al Fromm lying?

And who will you blame in 2008 if we loose?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

16. Only because Ralphie

did that to America first. And kept taking Repig money in '04.

I guess his masters at the RNC have another pile for him in '08, if only he'll take it.

If it turns out the Fundies back a third party candidate, as Dobson and others have threatened to do, the RNC will HAVE to cajole St. Ralph back into the fray to screw the pooch again.

[jgraz]

22. How does that make your impulses any less undemocratic?

Nader was a legitimate candidate who convinced many people to vote for him. Which part of that causes you so much agita?

And why does it seem that you are more bent out of shape by a legitimate third-party campaign than you are about actual illegal, corrupt tactics that the Rethugs used -- and are still using -- to steal elections???

[sufrommich]

15. What irks me is how many KNEW the republicans were funding

him,and still threw away their vote,and their country!

[jgraz]

24. Yep, because a weak DLC candidate with a right-wing running mate

and a clueless, cowardly party who wouldn't challenge caging before the election or obvious theft after the election should really be let off the hook.

It's all Ralph's fault that he got all those people to vote for him. How dare he steal AL GORE's votes!

[sufrommich]

46. I'm sure had that "weak DLC candidate "

been able to get even half the votes we lost to "Ralph" and won the election, we'd be exactly where we are today.:crazy:

[jgraz]

63. If he wasn't a weak DLC candidate, he wouldn't have needed votes to be "given" to him

Again I ask, what's your solution? Do you just want to hate on Nader, or should we begin work on a Constitutional amendment banning third-party candidates?

[sufrommich]

72. I want to hate on Nader. Got a problem with that?

[jgraz]

75. How'd that work for us in '04?

Another stolen election, another capitulation by our party, and you're still whining about Nader. Real productive.

[pnorman]

121. Is there any real proof that the Republican Party contribution

was a significant fraction to the 2000 Nader campaign? This is pretty close to allegation common a while back, that "such or such a union or "front" was financed by Moscow gold!" To a certain degree, some actually were, at least partially. But it was still a bum rap, and the ones making it needed close scrutiny themselves.

pnorman

[pnwmom]

10. 97,000 Nader voters in Florida were stupid enough to buy

Nader's line that Gore and Bush were the same, in an election that was decided by fewer than 600 votes.

We couldn't do much about Bush's vote stealing, but every progressive who CHOSE to vote for Nader helped put Bush in the Presidency.

[jgraz]

13. OK, you say we couldn't do much about Bush's vote stealing

But somehow we COULD do something about a valid third-party candidate who got 97,000 votes in Florida? Where's the logic in that?

[pnwmom]

17. Nader and the progressives who voted for him are the ones

who could have changed the outcome of the 2000 election.

[jgraz]

21. How about all those people who voted for Bush?? Didn't they also take votes away

For that matter, didn't Gore steal votes from Nader? We could have had 8 years of Ralph Nader if only Gore and his supporters hadn't been so selfish!


The difference here is that you want to shut down a valid democratic process while ignoring the true corruption. What say we fight the truly anti-democratic tactics used to steal the 2000 election instead of trying to introduce more of them from our side?

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. So let me get this straight

the USSC stoping the votes, and the caging lists had NOTHING to do with this.

I guess there is a problem with democracy, and not the crimes that were commited nor the crimes that are still being commited

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. It is something that could have never happened if the Democratic

"leadership" had not done everything in their power to alienate leftists whose natural home is the Democratic party.

The party ignores the left and reaches to the right, trying to put corporate money in its coffers, then wonders WHY the left would actually abandon the party.

I voted for Gore, and am disappointed at how many on the left did not, but I can't say I don't understand.

[jgraz]

27. Watch the exact same thing happen if we nominate Hillary

And I predict the same venom will flow from this board long after President Guiliani takes office.

[hfojvt]

12. a red herring, but is it true, or false?

Is it somehow distracting from your OP about how we need to and how we can fix this "broken election system."

[jgraz]

18. You're a bit unclear on the concept of "red herring", aren't you?

red herring
–noun
1. a smoked herring.
2. something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue.
3. Also called red-herring prospectus. Finance. a tentative prospectus circulated by the underwriters of a new issue of stocks or bonds that is pending approval by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: so called because the front cover of such a prospectus must carry a special notice printed in red.
4. any similar tentative financial prospectus, as one concerning a pending or proposed sale of cooperative or condominium apartments.

As any mystery fan knows, red herrings work best when they contain a bit of truth. However, that doesn't render them any more valid as arguments.

[cali]

28. You seem to feel entitled to decree what is and isn't

a red herring or a strawman. Guess what? that doesn't mean you're correct about your pigeon holing.

[jgraz]

34. Not the point...but thanks for trying

You disagree with me that Nader is a red herring? Fine, we can have that discussion.

But if you think that the red herring designation is somehow diminished by the truthfulness of the assertion, then you don't understand the concept.

[cali]

38. Fine. New Hampshire. n/t

[jgraz]

40. Concord! Now my turn: Mississippi

[cali]

45. Cute. In NH Gore lost by 7,000 votes. Nader got 22,000 votes

Do you actually believe it isn't possible that 1/3 of those 22,000 votes wouldn't have gone to Gore?

[jgraz]

49. hah, you only brought up Nader because you don't know the answer

Also, see post 51.

[pnorman]

124. Is it permissible to ask WHY Gore-Lieberman didn't get enough votes to carry NH?

Or for that matter, how come Gore lost in his own state, and by a "Nader-proof" margin? And when rehashing that 2000 election, WHY is Lieberman not mentioned? Perhaps Karl Rove secretly arranged to have him nominated? That would figure!

pnorman

[hfojvt]

37. "the matter at hand"

The matter at hand that I saw was an OP on DU that said "Don't blame Nader for 2000". Having done some reading this morning, I was prepared to answer.

If you want to talk about the need for election reform in this country, then leave out the red herring of the a$$hole traitor motherfucking sonofabitch piece of shit Ralph Nader, who I personally loathe for what I consider to be valid reasons.

He was asked before the election "What if your candidacy helps Bush win?" and he answered "I don't care."

As of this date, he has yet to even have the honesty, humility or decency to say "I was wrong". He's alot like his supporters that way.

[jgraz]

42. And many people don't have the "honesty, humility or decency" to admit he wasn't the main problem

You should look at your own irrational anger at Nader and ask how much it's clouding your judgment on this issue.

[hfojvt]

51. it's not irrational if he was enough of the problem

it's not like I don't take whacks at the M$M too.

Whether the traitor was the MAIN problem is kind of a moot point. If a) he was supposed to be on our side and b) he was enough of a problem that he could have single-handedly prevented the disaster that is the Bush administration.

The article I linked said he was not the ONLY reason. It still remains a fact that he was a reason.

[jgraz]

57. You cannot ignore one key fact: Gore won

With all the caging, with all the "traitorous" candidates, Al Gore still won that election by any impartial count. I submit that hating on Nader distracted from the fact that Gore earned a large part of the blame, and THAT allowed Kerry to slink away without fighting in '04.

[hfojvt]

66. Who says that Gore won?

Only the loony left.

SCOTUS decided otherwise and they are the final authority, just like they, rather than the voters, decided that abortion and sodomy are legal.

Gore did undercut himself, IMO, by conceding Florida, and the election, on election night.

None of that, however, would have been necessary if not for Nader. Subract Nader and Gore wins Florida by 40,000 with no need for a recount, for a SCOTUS decision, or for a fight in the Senate. Same thing with New Hammpshire, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, all of which the Nader campaign threatened to throw into the Bush camp. Gore could have campaigned more in Tennessee if Oregon and Florida had not been at risk, and the fact remains, that Nader DELIBERATELY campaigned in swing states and DELIBERATELY laced alot of his speeches and press releases with Gore-bashing.

[jgraz]

68. You just keep hating on Nader. We on the "looney left" will work for democracy

If your only lesson learned from 2000 is that we need to prevent people from entering the race, then you truly are beyond the reach of any facts I could present.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. And an independent press consortion that examined the votes

and released the data on September 11

That is how we know he won, but any acounting method used.

One was very close, but you get the point

[hfojvt]

6. Is what? My OP or his reply?

I am going with strawman for his reply. He does not really answer the arguments of the OP. Instead he makes some unsupported claim about our election system being broken and makes the further unsupported claim that I apparently have no interest in fixing this broken system.

So, if I am playing in the World Series of Politics for the Progressive team it does not matter if I, as a presumed leader of the team, spend all my time attacking my own team and deliberately striking out. The fault lies in the rules of baseball.

[jgraz]

76. Do you even know what a strawman argument is?

Sheesh, if you want to attack my posts, at least attack them correctly. :eyes:

[hfojvt]

88. my bad

I guess it was just ad hominem.

"God forbid we try to fix our broken election system" seemed like a strawman, since it was an argument that I never made. Hard for me to call it a red herring, although it is not relevant to my OP it seems like a more series issue than the OP.

Kind of a toss up, since you really did not make an argument. Just casted another asparagus.

Even if we never agree, thanks for an intelligent and respectful discussion. :sarcasm:

[pnwmom]

9. Neither. It's a very timely reminder, since Nader the spoiler is thinking

about doing his thing again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. I will ask again

caging lists don't matter

USSC getting involved in a state election don't matter

just Nader

Who will you blame if he doesn't run and they steal it again?

[jgraz]

126. You mean like in '04?

Or was that also Nader's fault? These guys have got me confused. :shrug:

[AndyTiedye]

85. It Is Fair to Point Out that Nader INTENTIONALLY Helped to Put ** in the White House

I think we are entitled to feel a bit betrayed.
Everybody can now see how much difference there really is between Bush and Gore.



That said, I HAVE been focusing on preventing the theft of future elections.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. If it were only true and not a mythology

even AL Fromm disagrees with this.

Now care to feel a little betrayed over caging lsits, Harris, Jeb Bush and the USSC?

Those ARE your reasons

By the way, you realize Al won, don't you?

[AndyTiedye]

111. Nader Was Making a Point of Campaigning in Every Swing State

then he insulted our intelligence by claiming he was just trying to get as high a popular vote as possible.

If he had wanted that he would have been campaigning in California and New York, and not in swing states.
He could have gotten many more votes there, and not risked putting a Republican in the White House.

But he really wanted to put Bush in the White House, because he wanted things to get worse. A lot worse.

They sure did.

Nader wanted to destroy the Democratic Party in the hope that a desperate nation would then turn to him after Bush screwed up everything.

[KoKo]

107. Agree...Bringing up Nader distracts from Rove/Repug Operatives destroying Free Voting System in US

To keep beating the Nader Drum is like saying Clinton might have not won because of Ross Perot...because he syphoned votes from the RW Repugs.

Nader was addressing the "Pox on Both House" voters who long ago felt there was no difference between the parties.

If we keep trashing Third Parties we get NOWHERE!

One might as well be ANGRY over the Pat Buchanan Votes in Florida where even Buchanan didn't think he got all those votes there.

It was Jeb Bush's Florda and his brother was the Candidate and the "Bush MACHINE had OPS IN PLACE throught the FLA election process that caused this fiasco! It was a STOLEN ELECTION...by Repug Ops like are now being investigated....

Get over NADER...he wasn't why Gore isn't President!!!

[TahitiNut]

129. Here's what annoys me (an independent) about this constant lament ...

Nader's candidacy was legal and ethical in what we (laughingly?) call a democracy.
Voters were free to vote for Nader or ANYONE ELSE. It was legal and ethical for them to do so.

I steadfastly support the rights of Americans to both run for office and to vote their consciences. Period!

Several major corrupt and ethically questionable acts were undertaken in that election, from the caging lists to the butterfly ballot to the Izod Brigade to fraudulent ballot counts. The culmination was an abominable act of SCOTUS in 'gaming' the system instead of (far more consistent with the Constitution) merely disqualifying the Florida election and declaring their electors inadmissible. Under any child's sense of equity, there was never any basis for a "winner takes all" finalization of the Florida vote. Therefore, the sole ethical remedy would be to disallow electors from Florida.

It is BEYOND INSANE to rail and complain about the legal and ethical acts of American citizens as being somehow responsible for the result of an election so appallingly corrupted! Such a stance is a surrender to criminality ... shifting the blame for the results of criminality to law-abiding people!

In my view, that's both cowardly and amoral - and amtithetical to the rights and freedoms of a 'democratic' nation.

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. Which came first, nader or the stolen election?

nader came first, without nader the election wouldn't have been close enough to steal.

[pnwmom]

11. Exactly. I think some of these people flunked basic arithmetic. n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

26. Some DUer latched on to me & repeatedly insulted me

for pressing this case last night.

[cali]

31. for all their outrage about Nader being used as a punching bag

and furious claims that he didn't impact the vote, either in NH or FL, they have their own axes to grind.

[jgraz]

64. Yeah, my "axe" is that I happen to like democracy. What's yours?

:shrug:

[hfojvt]

70. my axe is that I happen to hate the Bush Administration

and did my best to prevent it from happening. Unlike Ralph Nader, who did the opposite.

[jgraz]

74. Really? What exactly did you do?

Because from your posts on this thread, it seems you don't have the first clue how someone would actually work against a repeat of 2000.

[hfojvt]

90. fortunately I have you here to enlighten me

or insult me. Same thing, isn't it?

[jgraz]

92. Funny how you seem to have no answer for the question

I understand. Obsessing on red herrings takes up a lot of time.

[jgraz]

86. Luckily, most of us took basic civics

Which is why we have a problem with the suggestion that certain people shouldn't be allowed to run for office, or that others should be punished or scorned for voting for them.


What is the problem with focusing on the actual undemocratic corruption of that election, rather than pissing on someone for having the temerity to compete for "Al Gore's" votes?

[hfojvt]

95. that does not work for an argument

The argument that "Nader helped Bush to win" is not disproven by the true statement that "Nader had a right to run and help Bush to win." Nobody is disputing that he had a right to do what he did. The question is, does what he did make him a traitor to progressives? I'd call that a big yes.

If he cares about the things he claims to care about, he should be kicking himself far harder than I could ever kick him. He's alot like Bush though, he can't admit he was wrong. His motto: "Non, je ne regrette rien"

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. Except that people like AL FROMM don't agree with you

he had access to all the data

I'll take his word on this one

There is this pressure not to have OTHERS run since they may split the ticket

Well tought shit, it is democracy

And in this case, the people IN THE KNOW realize it didn't

Now CAGING did hurt Gore... and it is a crime... where is the outrage?

[hfojvt]

108. show me the data and I will analyze it myself

I take no one at their word unless they have proven themselves in the past. Al Fromm, for example, has proven himself to be a DLC a$$hat. Doesn't mean he is either lying or wrong now, but it does not mean I am going to accept his word on something which is, to me, a logical impossibility. I could be wrong, but Al Fromm's word does not prove it, only the data can do that. You believe him, perhaps, because he is telling you something you want to hear.

[jgraz]

100. My argument is that all this obsessing on Nader does nothing productive

It just stirs up bad feelings. If we run Hillary, we will see many more people defecting than we ever did with Gore. If we don't understand why that happened, we'll likely see a repeat of 2000.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. For the record, based on US electoral history

she won't be the candidate

[jgraz]

103. How so?

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. Start with Dean and then go back

candidates from both parties "leading" national polls at this stage of the game, tend not to take it

The exception I think was 1948

The problem is that national trends (aka polls) are never the same as the local Iowa polls

That is why.

[hfojvt]

105. irony alert

If Hillary is the nominee, I plan to defect myself. Check my journal. Some would blame me for defecting. Maybe they could blame the M$M and the rest of the ignorant sheep who gave us such a bad candidate. In my defense too, my defection will not make a tanjed bit of difference in Kansas, and I will continue to work to re-elect our Congresswoman and state reps.

But I am an Edwards supporter and would be happy with Dodd or Biden and could probably tolerate Obama (even though he seems to be running even more centrist than Clinton). Too many DUers seem to be "nobody but Kucinich".

But I do not know why there are bad feelings over a no brainer, unless Nader supporters STILL hate the Democratic Party. Not the DLC. The Democratic Party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. What came first? Caging lists or a stolen election?

:-)

That my friend is truly basic arithmethic

[cali]

41. Basic Arithmetic. 22,000 Nader votes in NH. Gore lost by 7,000.

Bur for some reason you prefer to keep repeating "caging lists" over and over again.

[jgraz]

61. Which one needs to be fixed?

Do you want to try to prevent third-party candidates or illegal minority disenfranchisement? Tell me, what is your solution to scandalously democratic events like a Nader candidacy?

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. Democracy... VE CAN"T HAVE THAT HERE

Understood?

:-)

Yep it is amazing that people actually argue against third parties when third parties are not the crimes against democracy

[terisan]

23. Free to run but ironic that Nader helped inaugurate the biggest anti-consumer presidency in history.

Of course he was free to run. It was and is up to the voters to decide whether to support the third parties or their candidates, and to assess whether doing so will help or hurt the country.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Let me list the other factors

Caging lists... what was it, 50,000 votes, or more?

Thugs on the ground

Even Al Fromm admits that Nader was not a factor, yes AL FROMM

Oh and the USSC

But I guess blaming nader and continuing this mythology is ok at DU

The truth is verbotten

[cali]

36. New Hampshire.

No one seems to want to address the FACT that Gore lost by 7,000 votes and Nader got 22,000 votes. If slightly under 1/3 of those votes had gone to Gore, he would have won.

You're the one dealing in straight from the green's website mythology sans facts.

You love making shit up and pretending it's the truth.

It's not.

Fact free pontificating IS the myth.

And you're the one doing it.

[jgraz]

48. I'll deal with it: I don't care

Nader ran as a legitimate candidate and people voted for him. If people chose to vote for him instead of Gore, why isn't that Gore's problem?

The fact still remains that Gore did not have to lose that election, and in fact did NOT lose the election. He chose to run to the center. He chose a fundamentalist running mate. He chose to give up the fight before it got to Congress. And he and his party chose to ignore the caging lists that cost him more votes in Florida than Nader did.


And yet, people still insist on directing all their rage at Ralph Nader. As long as that is happening, these other problems will go unaddressed.

Tell me, how did all that Nader-hating help us in '04??

[cali]

52. You're absolutely right that he ran as a legit candidate, but that is a red herring

in this discussion. I'm not questioning the legitimacy of his run. I'm simply pointing out that Nadine's argument that Gore would have lost had Nader not been a factor, is highly debatable. And NH is one really difficult obstacle in her effectively making that argument

And I actually don't hate Nader, or need an excuse. I agree with all your other points, but facts matter to me. they matter a lot. If there's anything I hate it's a fact free argument about a factual event.

But thanks for your excellent illustration of a red herring to go with your dictionary definition. Really brings it to life.

[jgraz]

55. It's not debatable at all: Gore Won.

How could Nader cost Gore the election if Gore actually won? George Bush cost Gore the election by stealing Florida and Gore cost himself the election by giving up the fight.


As long as we focus on Nader, we fail to appreciate those crucial lessons.

[cali]

56. You're missing the point.

It's entirely plausible that if Nader hadn't been on the ballot in NH, Gore would have won. No SCOTUS. And for fuck's sake, Gore didn't give up the fight. He fought for weeks and Boies did a heroic job.

What more should Gore have done? Really, I'm curious.

[jgraz]

58. What more should Gore have done? How about challenging the certification?

There were plenty of members of Congress who wanted to continue the fight. Gore chose not to, even though he still had political avenues open to him. What possible fallout would be worse than the past 6 years?

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. I thnk he couldn't challenge it

he was not a member of the Senate, but the President of the Electoral college with nothing more than just the powers to preside

But I may be wrong on that

He went as far as LEGALLY he could

Once the USSC ruled on December 12, the coup was a fait acompli and he only had one choice and one he didn't want to pursue... as it was outside the law at that moment

He answered that question obliquely some years back, two years I think

[jgraz]

83. An interesting question. One of the Democratic Senators certainly could have, though

I can't believe Gore would not have been able to persuade a single Senator to sponsor a challenge. Most of us knew in 2000 what was at risk -- why didn't the Dems do more to prevent Bush from taking office?

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. And that is the point Moore made

taht scene on F911 should be required watching

[cali]

106. LOL. No there weren't.

There were no more than a handful. And you haven't named the political avenues. Furthermore, he didn't have a crystal ball in 2000. This is just an absurd argument.

[AuntPatsy]

73. I firmly agree with that statement, and it is what should hold more focus.

[bulldogge]

67. amen

[Jim Lane]

127. Yes, "all that Nader-hating" DID help us in '04

After the 2000 election, we "Nader haters" made the point that the practical effect of Nader's run had been to undercut the principles he said he believed in. We pointed the two key points: (1) If Nader had chosen not to run, or had run in the Democratic primaries, then Gore would almost certainly have been inaugurated as President instead of Bush; and (2) Bush as President was much worse than Gore would have been.

Nader received almost 2.9 million votes in 2000 but fewer than half a million in 2004. Quite a few of the people who were deluded into voting for Nader in 2000 -- most of those people, in fact -- realized the error of their ways. Much of that swing was probably caused by the people who, while admiring what Nader accomplished in the first part of his career, refused to allow that admiration to cloud their judgment about the disastrous effects of his self-indulgent political forays.

I put "Nader haters" in quotation marks because I don't hate him. I'll certainly cop to being a "Nader basher", though. He deserves to be bashed and bashed hard. If he runs in 2008, I'll be rooting for him to finish fourth or worse. (It's not impossible. In 2004, his margin over Badnarik was about 0.06% of the popular vote.)

And, by the way, I certainly shouldn't need to add this, but in light of the intellectual dishonesty of some Nader supporters in this thread I have to: I'm not saying that Nader should not have been allowed to run. He had a right to run. I have a right to deplore his decision. And, of course, the remaining diehard Nader supporters have a right to disagree with me. (If I applied some Naderites' logic to their own statements, their criticism of Nader-bashing would mean that they believe Nader-bashing should be illegal. Of course, I realize, as some of them don't, that one can criticize a decision without calling for it to be prohibited.)

[bulldogge]

53. Why is

everyone so sure that if the vote had not gone to Nadar it would have Gore? Second our individual votes one way or the other where not the outcome....there is this thing called the electoral college...Is it possible that people who supported Nadar did so because they did not like Gore or Bush? The argument seems to be that if you didn't want Gore or Bush to simply be quiet and not use your voice as not to ruin it for the "others". Nowadays Gore seems like a pretty good choice but let us be realistic about it awhile back Gore was not the same man he appears to be now.

[lateo]

93. There is no doubt Nader hurt Gore.

But how in the hell did the Democrats get into a position where even 2% of the vote kills their chances of getting the White House? FFS Clinton had just given the American's their dream back. How do you explain this monumental failure on the part of the Democratic party?

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. Al FROM disagrees with you

what definitely hurt Al Gore (and John Kerry four years later) and it is highly ilegal, are Caging Lists

Care to have some outrage over what really hurt the democrats?

And honestly you think that those voters would have voted for Gore if Nader wasn't there?

By the way, you are aware that Gore won, aren't you?

[lateo]

112. I use hurt in a relative sense.

Overall though Nader's impact was nil compared to all the other things that happened. And yes, I am aware that Gore won. I am a staunch Nader supporter although I voted for Gore. Nader's candidacy has been much maligned and wrongly so.

[cali]

47. Caging lists can't account for NH

And you don't want to address NH, nor do any of those who are making the same "argument" you are.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

30. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[sufrommich]

50. Why would a Democratic forum lock an Anti Nader thread?

[cali]

54. It' really about wanting to feel persecuted by all the

evil purported DLCers here at DU.

[jgraz]

59. Why would they lock a follow-on thread continuing a flamewar? Hmm...

I have no clue why someone would do that. It's not like it violates any rule or anything... :shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Well it wasn't a flame war, it was an honest discussion

on caging lists, matters like that

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. At this point anything they may not like they deem as flamebait

:-(

[sufrommich]

82. I don't think it works that way.You could ask them outright

instead of hinting at alternative motives.

[DaveJ]

43. Don't hate the playa' hate the game

Just thought I'd mention that.. although, I do want to hate Nader because, despite his self espoused good intentions, he knew what was at risk and didn't care. (Makes Hillary style selfishness look mild.)

[cuke]

65. Reasonable people can disagree if Nader caused Gore's loss

but there's no reasonable way to claim that Nader didn't want Gore to lost.

[hfojvt]

109. that is an excellent point

but it should be "loose" instead of "lost".

I noticed you before arguing very well on other threads and would have welcomed you to DU, but I did not want my unpopularity to rub off on you.

[cuke]

119. Bwahaha!!

No chance of me allowing your unpopularity to interfere with the development of my unpopularity, so don't worry about that.

Thanks for the welcome!

[L. Coyote]

69. It is historical fact. Those who voted Nader must face this fact themselves.

While Nader should be forever remembered as the guy who handed Bush his junta, each voter for Nader, each campaign worker for Nader, must also share the burden of history. They need to face up to their monumental F**K UP!

And, Nader should have urged his supporters in key states to vote their conscience for another candidate. His inaction in the face of the obvious is the most egregious aspect of this tragic chapter of history.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. So caging lists by choice point

Governor Jeb Bush, Secretary of State Katherine Harris, and of couse the USSC and their December 12th ruling have nothing to do with the coup.

:wtf:

[L. Coyote]

116. Only if you say so. But, that was not the point. Why not blame Dems who died instead of voting?

The point is, if Nader voters had been told by Nader to vote Gore in key swing states, Jeb Bush, Secretary of State Katherine Harris, and of couse the USSC and their December 12th ruling could not have pulled off a successful coup! This was obvious to Nader before the vote, after all, he's not a 92 IQ like Bush!

[jgraz]

79. So your solution is....what?

What punishment would you hand out for all those nasty voters? How will that help us in '08?

We're about to see a repeat of 2000 (and 2004): we'll nominate a DLC triangulator against an authoritarian troglodyte and hope for the best -- no election reform, no connection with the progressive majority, no real change. None of the lessons of 2000 have been addressed, cuz we're all too busy pissing on the people who had the gall to actually vote for the candidate of their choice.

The Rethugs must be loving it.

[bulldogge]

89. let me say this

Their "conscience" was to vote for Nadar, what is so hard to understand about that. Why is it so difficult to believe that there is a part of the voting populace who did not like either of the majority candidates? How about this everybody that didn't vote for Nadar must face up to their monumental error. The Democrats are the party that I support through the election process but they have their own weaknesses that must be addressed. I don't think it is that unbelievable that people voted for Nadar. Gore is much more appealing now than then with a more energetic down to earth personality and the benefit of hind sight but voting is in no way an error, not voting is a problem, if more people had voted everyone would not be pointing fingers at those who did.

[whoneedstickets]

91. The effort at denial by Nader supporters is instructive...

...their cute 'protest' action resulted in America's worst president and a war that may have killed half a million people.

Next time I hope they take into account that the institutions we have in place favor two party systems. Many don't like this, but we're mature enough to vote intelligently.

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. Do you have the same level of outrage for caging lists

which are ilegal incidentally?

[cali]

110. You keep parroting two word. I suspect you don't know a thing

about caging lists, and they weren't instrumental in NH. Because you omitted any explanation, I've provided this from wiki.

According to an article by Dahlia Lithwick in Slate.com, caging has been used by members of the Republican Party as a form of voter suppression.<3> The use of direct mail caging techniques to target voters resulted in the application of the name to the political tactic. With one type of caging, a political party sends registered mail to addresses of registered voters. If the mail is returned as undeliverable - because, for example, the voter refuses to sign for it, the voter isn't present for delivery, or the voter is homeless - the party uses that fact to challenge the registration, arguing that because the voter could not be reached at the address, the registration is fraudulent.<4> A political party challenges the validity of a voter's registration; for the voter's ballot to be counted, the voter must prove that their registration is valid.

[frylock]

114. i'm not going to be held to account because your crap-ass party can't run a decent candidate..

you fucking people crack me up! you want to blame everyone but yourselves for your party's failings. fuck all that.

[stimbox]

94. Goddamn Pat Buchannan cost Gore the election!

:crazy:

[jgraz]

102. Excellent point, though. Bush had his own "vote stealer" in Florida

And yet, Nader somehow gets all the attention. Seven years later, it seems that so many people still haven't learned the real lessons of that election.

[stimbox]

128. Nader out progressives the supposed progressives.

Some DUers thrive on the 2 minutes hate against Nader.

[Sparkly]

113. But Nader voters had to vote their "conscience."

They couldn't sleep at night if they'd compromised their principles and voted for Gore!

I guess they figure eight years of George W. Bush isn't all THAT bad.... :crazy:

[ruiner4u]

125. "But it does allow fundamentalist leftists to keep living in their dream world."

best quote from that article.



Funny how we crucify fundy righties on this board, but theres nary a mention on the fundy leftists...


but...but... that makes me a centrist!!! IIIIEEEEEE!!!!!!


i must be DLC....

:hide:

[UTUSN]

115. I've already K&R-ed #4. Can somebody do the BIG #5 thing, please?!1 Thanks!1 n/t

[dorkulon]

117. I'm one of those "idiots"

I voted for Nader in 2000--in NY, but still, I don't think it's appropriate to call me an 'idiot' for voting for the candidate who best represented my views. "Jews for Buchanon," you might remember, had at least as much impact as the Nader vote. And, again, the only votes that counted in 2000 were those of Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, Rhenquist & Kennedy.

[unblock]

118. if it weren't for nader ... the republicans would have had to steal MORE votes!

the truth of the matter is that the bushies stole florida, and were never going to stop until they had it won. if gore's lead had been 30,000 higher or whatever without nader, then the republicans would have stolen 30,000 more votes.

that's the problem when you're playing with cheaters. they only stop cheating when they win or get caught.

[mondo joe]

120. Regardless of "the cause", the Naderites were fucking WRONG when they said there was no difference

between Bush and Gore.

[whoneedstickets]

122. Damn right! Yet thier kind are at it again....

..AND many on this board seem to be falling for it.

yeah, campaigns are ugly they all need to look up "median voter theorem"

[upi402]

123. I hate to say it, but does it look like Nader was right after all?

Not that it counts now, I'm just saying...