I voted Democrat all my life. Still, I think blaming Nader for Bush is a huge logical fallacy.

[LadyLeigh]

I realize it is a very convenient thing to do, since finger pointing is always easy, but it is still quite illogical. Even if the number of votes that Nader got where exactly the number that was missing to elect Gore, and there hadn't been election fraud, it would still be a fallacy.

The reason is actually rather simple: It takes (as a simplified model) exactly one vote more than 50% of the votes to win an election. Not whatever small number of votes that Nader got.

The fallacy is assuming that only the votes that actually pushed one over the margin are the ones that mattered. In some sense, saying that "spoiler candidate x" is to blame for a loss is akin to saying that, in a country with 100 billion people, where a candidate lost an election because he received 50 billion votes minus one, the nail on the street that blew the tires of one couple on their way to the ballots was the determining factor. As if these two people that didn't show up were the only ones in the country and the nail was the only force at play.

It is a gross negligence of the bigger picture as well as a huge display of mathematical impaired thinking.

In a democracy, every vote counts the same. How many votes were lost because of Monika Lewinski? How many because of NAFTA? How many because Lieberman was on the ticket?

Like I said, I never voted for Nader. But I still think people who pretend that Nader was to blame should explain why the number X of votes that Nader got somehow count more than the votes lost because of the reasons quoted above and other reasons.

I blame the Democrats for running a shitty campaign, and the Republicans supreme court, and Al Gore for not fighting their decision. Nader may or may not have been a drop in the bucket, but to blame him is to ignore the real reasons.

[mattclearing]

1. Bush stole Florida. Without Nader, he'd still have stolen Florida.

When the fix is in, the fix is in.

[LuvNewcastle]

3. That's exactly right.

Greg Palast explained the whole thing years ago, regarding the people purged from the voter rolls and turned away on election day. It was all a big magic act, and Nader was used for mis-direction by the Bush campaign.

[TheWraith]

67. No, it's not. Bush won by a few hundred. Nader siphoned off 90,000.

The only way you can say "Well, they would have just stolen it anyway!" is if you seriously think that there is an unlimited ability to just manufacture votes out of thin air, in which case there is no point in even having elections anymore.

The reality, however, is that for all the tricks that can be used, from ballot invalidation, to purging voter rolls, to intimidation, there are limits. You cannot steal a landslide, and if half of those Nader votes had gone to Gore, Bush would just be another schmuck Republican governor.

[mattclearing]

76. You're acting like these things happen in a vacuum

It's not as simple as, "No Nader, those votes flip to Gore."

Your presumption is that somehow without Nader in the race, Bush is suddenly unable to prevent sufficient likely Democratic voters from voting to win the race.

I'm saying that without Nader in the race, Jeb's Florida machine just cracks down harder on likely Democratic voting areas...a missing voting machine here, an extra roadblock there, same basic result.

[BzaDem]

105. That is a nonsensical argument. There is absolutely no way Jeb's machine could have known in advance

what the margin was going to be. If you are correct, there is an action X

a) Would have helped Bush at the expense of Gore
b) That they thought they could get away with, and
c) That Jeb decided not to take because of Nader, that he would have taken if Nader was not in the race.

That is completely implausible. Any action that fit criteria A and B would have been taken regardless of whether Nader was in the race.

[Stuart G]

142. Wrong...Jeb's machine knew it would be close...I beleive he

and his machine secretly funded Nader. (no, you will never find this anywhere)
They knew it would take thousands of votes from Gore....And it did. along with Voter Supression, and other tricks..they knew it
would be very close..

that is why they indimadated the recounters..It was all in the plan..from start to finish.

Nader has never accepted any responsibility...none..
the arraogant asshole should accept some, but none is still none...

[trueblue2007]

98. IT IS ALL NADER'S FAULT. If that jackass had not have run, Gore would have won

[defendandprotect]

119. Nonsense -- it was a RW steal from A to Z ... from Jon Ellis/Fox to Gang of 5 --

and in between a fascist rally organized by now Chief Justice Roberts!!

Pat Buchanan in fact had a mroe direct impact on the Miami-Dade results -- more than

3,000 votes than anyone -- butterfly ballot designed by a Dem -- later found to be

connected to Repugs?

Time to stop letting the truly accountable for 2000 off the hook --

Nor do these steals begin in 2000 --

the LARGE computers used by MSM came in during the mid-1960's and gave them new powers

to PREDICT and CALL elections -- you simply saw that power reversed in 2000!

And the voting computers came in during the late 1960's -- I'd question every election

back to Nixon/Humphrey --

Certainly 2004 election was also stolen --

And some say that Obama actually had a much larger mandate in 2008 -- would have mean

something like 24 more Dems in the House !

Meanwhile -- Gore WON 2000 -- no matter how the votes are counted!!

Or -- do you want to argue against that, as well???


:rofl:

[EFerrari]

28. Yep.

[The Backlash Cometh]

51. It would have been more difficult to do.

Bush won by 532 votes. Without Nadar, those numbers would have been hard to pull.

[coalition_unwilling]

57. Um, Bush did not 'win' by 532 votes. The vote count was

halted by order of the USSC. All post-elections audits (no matter which standard was used to count ballots) showed Gore the clear winner in Florida.

[The Backlash Cometh]

60. Since I lived the history, I can say this about that:

532 votes was the line that was pushed. They needed that in order to get Bush's foot in the door of the Whitehouse. When the newspaper sponsored recounts began after he entered office, they were interrupted by 9/11. In the months following that disaster, it felt like someone intentionally tried to push this issue aside so that Bush became the uncontested leader of the U.S.A. It would take years later for all the information to come out that you have today.

What that tells me, because I've seen it time and time again, is that there are architects of chaos out there that intentionally exploit the time factor. By the time you have all the facts together, it won't matter. They have finished with their agenda, forged strong networks and moved onto their next evil agenda.

[coalition_unwilling]

96. I too lived the history and, far from blaming Nader, I blame myself.

Why's that, you ask? Because I knew enough history and should have dropped everything and headed to Florida to take it to the streets against the brown shirts sent to halt the vote count. (In my defense, neither Gore nor anyone of any national prominence issued a call for us to come to Florida to stand up to the brown shirts.)

I knew there was something completely rotten going on in Florida and got into several shouting matches at work with Repuke colleagues at the time. (On a semi-humorous note, I continued speaking to said Repukes until Operation Shocking and Awful kicked off :) However, despite knowing that a coup was going down in Florida, I shirked my responsibility to the sacred republic.

The newspaper recounts after the fact merely confirmed what I had known all along. The Supreme Court had to stop the vote counts because Bush did not have the votes. In tossing out the principle of 'one man, one vote' America was lost. And my failure to go to Florida to take it to the streets played a small role in that.

[Enthusiast]

109. I can't imagine a more anti-democratic act

than the supreme court's stopping the vote counting.

There is no question that this was a criminal treasonous act. And just look at the supreme court since with Thomas and Citizens United.

[David Sky]

132. Yes, any one still on the court who voted for that decision should be

in prison now. Those justices failed to defend and protect the Constitution of the USA.

If I were for the DP, I'd say "hang em high"! But I'm not, so life in prison for their treasonous acts would be fine with me.

[Enthusiast]

108. "The architects of chaos"

Wonderful term.

[The Backlash Cometh]

114. And there is only one way to stop them.

Once you have the information, you have to go back and hold them accountable. This is what Obama didn't do, which is why Karl Rove is still out there spewing more squid ink to cloud the issues.

[Enthusiast]

131. I agree............nt

[defendandprotect]

121. 9/11 and anthrax shutting down Congress were also helpful to keeping any real challenge

to the 2000 election from happening --

Congress was shut down -- and citizens shut out if they had anything to say it

was difficult to deliver a message --

Still today they're irradiating -- or is it radiating -- Congressional mail -- and

it takes 3 weeks to dry out!!

[The Backlash Cometh]

124. I remember when it happened, that I wondered, if our government was

behind it, or if they had tolerated it, it would have given the reason they needed to shut down those recounts. They bullied us based on a patriotic cause.

[defendandprotect]

120. And, as I recall it, during the recount, W's "lead" was down to something like 34 votes -- !!!

And more than 3,000 votes for Buchanan which were obviously intended for Gore

came flying in on the "butterfly" ballot -- designed by Theresa La Pore -- a Dem

who later was revealed to have ties to Repugs --

[The Backlash Cometh]

125. I didn't know she had ties to Repugs.

You learn something new every day around here.

[defendandprotect]

128. It's what I've read ....

but the news didn't come quickly --

and the butterfly ballot was disguised as an effort to help those with

vision problems, if I recall correctly?


RW can't afford to let anyone take over the White House who will out their past

crimes and cover ups -- imo!

[mattclearing]

77. See my response above.

If the 2000 and 2004 elections tell us anything, it's that the Bush people were willing to do whatever was necessary to win. There's no reason to believe that they wouldn't have stolen even more brazenly without Nader in the race. They managed to flip 100,000 votes or whatever it was in Ohio '04 through obstruction, poor servicing of Democratic-leaning areas, and likely outright data tampering (unverifiable, thanks to Blackwell's legal wrangling, IIRC).

Such a fraud would have been sufficient to flip the race in Florida 2000 with or without Nader, and I don't see any reason to believe they wouldn't have done it if they needed to.

[Enthusiast]

110. They are preparing

similar subterfuge in 2012.

[defendandprotect]

122. True -- but think it was getting harder for them to do it -- too much NOISE ....

However, they certainly can't afford to have someone come into the White House

who would not protect the cover up -- !!

[hfojvt]

66. without Nader would he have stolen New Hampshire?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/118

[defendandprotect]

123. Gore won the election --- are you disputing that?

What you are looking at is a RW steal ---

and the reward to Roberts who organized the fascist rally and led the steal

was Chief Justice of Supreme Court!

[Enthusiast]

107. You are correct, sir!

[mod mom]

113. that is exactly correct, not to mention that every voter should be able to chose the best candidate

that represents them.

[supraTruth]

2. My mom use to say we have to pick the lesser of 2 EVILS; & she was right.

Nader, Perot, they only took away from the party that voted for them.

[stuntcat]

73. exactly right

yup yup

[readmoreoften]

74. Many people who voted for Nader would've never voted for a Democrat in a million years.

The Democratic Party has big problems thinking that they have a "right" to the votes of anyone who doesn't like the Republicans. People who vote for 3rd parties are also equally uninterested in the Democrats. I think it's interesting that the Democrats are obsessed with voters that they think they have a "right" to, even as they do nothing whatsoever to represent these individuals and groups.

A pro-life farmer in Wisconsin who votes Green because of Monsanto does not belong to the Democratic Party. What's more: votes are something that you WIN. You don't have the right to anyone's vote.

[BzaDem]

4. Using your logic, you can't blame the "shitty campaign," or any other reason.

Why? Because however many votes (say) the Democrats running a shitty campaign cost (call it X), it takes exactly one vote more than 50% of the votes to win an election. Not simply X.

See what you have done? Your logic prevents ANY factor from being blamed, since no cause was the SOLE cause. That should be enough to tell you that your logic is incorrect.

In reality, there were many causes, and they are all to blame. So when apportioning blame, the blame goes to anyone who didn't vote for Gore. That includes all Bush voters and all Nader voters. All enabled Bush's inauguration over Gore's. A vote does not need to be the deciding vote to deserve blame.

[orpupilofnature57]

5. Your Exactly right!! Enabling the Shrub Agenda was an act of Misanthropy..

against ourselves ,and Ralph helped ,or Enabled.

[TexasProgresive]

7. Fon't forget to blame all those who ddn't vote.

I don't understand trying to rehabilitate Nader.

[Fumesucker]

9. Yes but there's a special level of hate for those who point out the rightward drift of the Democrats

Even the Reagan Democrats don't come in for the level of hate that Nader voters got and the fall of the USA can in large measure be traced back to Reagan and his policies which have only been made more extreme by succeeding administrations.

Reagan Democrats are the ones to blame for our current situation as much as anyone and yet they are far less often mentioned and come in for far less abuse than Nader voters.

Evidently what drives these Nader rants is someone voting for an _alternative_ to the current two party system.

If that were not so then I wouldn't have seen a Republican candidate supported over a Democratic one on DU.

Edited due to caffeine deficiency.

[hfojvt]

70. because those people are presumably on our side

Nader presumably cares about the environment, and yet he helped elect an anti-environment President.

Of course those who betray a cause or causes come in for more hatred than those who fight against the same causes. The running back who fumbles on purpose allowing the other team to win is going to be hated more than the safety who intercepts a pass and causes the other team to win. The latter one is just logically doing his job. After all, he wants his Republican team to win. He wants those Republican policies to be enacted. The other guy, though, supposedly wants something different, indeed precisely the opposite.

Heck, if the guy had any decency, he'd be beating himself up over a major miscalculation. "Sorry, guys, I thought that fumbling in the first half would fire up the team and we'd kick some butt in the 2nd half. Clearly that did not happen, and I certainly regret that fumble. It's made things worse. It had truly horrifying consequences that I did not expect."

Instead the foolish bonehead is unrepentant and has people making excuses for him. Both of which are kinda annoying, to say the least.

[Fumesucker]

72. The Reagan Democrats are supposedly on our side too..

Why so little hate for them and so much for Nader voters?

[BzaDem]

88. But there is no way to vote for something other than the two party system. The system is never put

up for a vote.

If you don't like that, then change the Constitution's requirement of an absolute majority of electoral votes to become President (or better yet, the entire electoral college) in favor of something like proportional representation.

But unless and until that happens, "voting" against the two-party system is no different than "voting" against the force of gravity.

[Fumesucker]

102. As I said, what drives the rants is voting for an alternative..

Otherwise we would not have seen a Republican candidate favored over a Democratic candidate on DU, that was the incident that opened my eyes.

And otherwise the Reagan Democrats would come in for the same level of hate as Nader voters.

You can vote for or support Republicans and not get anywhere near the same level of hate on DU that you'll get for admitting you voted for any third party.

You can label that if you wish as "voting against the law of gravity" but it doesn't explain the difference in attitude towards Dems who vote for Republicans vs Dems who vote for a third party.

[BzaDem]

104. Two reasons.

For one, many Dems who vote for Republicans are basically Republicans. For example, many in the South who are registered Democrats have been voting Republican for decades. They just never changed their registration.

Ultimately, a Republican voter (regardless of party registration) is a voter that has different values than a Democratic/progressive voter. So any argument with them would be a values argument. You don't see many Democratic vs. Republican values arguments here, because this is not a site for Republicans. Those types of values arguments appear on other sites. To the extent that a DU poster posts on a non-Democratic site, my guess is that you would see similarly heated arguments.

The third party voting situation is different. Third party voting progressives and non-third-party-voting progressives agree that Republican values are bad for America, and that Republican-favored policies cause tremendous hardship for the non-rich (to say the least). One group uses that information (that both groups know) to vote against Republican candidates. The other group uses that information to take an action that directly helps the Republican win the election at the expense of the Democrat -- knowing full well the consequences of that action (and doing it anyway).

So ultimately there are two reasons. One is that it is natural for more ire to be raised by people who take an action knowing full well that it will have massive negative consequences on other people, than people who take actions but who think those actions will ultimately help. The other is that anger and arguments with Republicans actually are quite prevalent -- just not here (due to the self-selected population that posts here).

[Fumesucker]

106. So you are capable of predicting the future and think everyone else is also?

If Democratic politicians lose enough votes to third parties due to their steady march to the right for thirty years to start regularly losing elections then they have no one else to blame but themselves.

Politicians are selling a product, marketing a brand, if their product or brand does not appeal to enough people it's hardly the fault of those people to whom it doesn't appeal.

Continually you try to blame the customer because the product does not appeal to them, that's not the way marketing works and politics is to a big extent about marketing.

[BzaDem]

111. Bad analogy. Someone is going to be inaugurated whether anyone likes it or not,

so the analogy to a product (that one can refuse to buy altogether) is a bad analogy.

Ultimately, one of two people will be inaugurated after each Presidential election. Any decision not to vote for the Democrat is by definition a decision to enable the Republican's victory. Some people try to deny that to make themselves feel better, but math is math, and math doesn't change just because it makes some people uncomfortable. A voluntary action to enable a Republican's inauguration (when an alternative action is available that does not do so) can by definition be blamed on the person who took the action.

[Fumesucker]

112. Not any more..

Or have you forgotten the private insurance mandate?

You know, the mandate you think is the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel..

ETA: Not to mention there are plenty of "choices" I make that aren't really choices whether to purchase something but rather which of several options I'm going to buy.

Food, clothing and shelter, if I fail to choose which of these items I'm going to purchase I either have to make it all myself or starve to death naked in the open.

[BzaDem]

115. If you want to analogize it to a market where there are exactly two products, and any failure to

choose (including pretending there are more than two) results in you automatically getting the worst product of the two, that works.

[Fumesucker]

116. The abysmal voting participation rate in this country is due the feeling of futility..

Practically every conversation I have with you here on DU increases my feeling of futility, if that is your ultimate aim then you're doing a great job.

One of the reasons so many working people vote Republican or don't vote at all is because the Democrats have essentially abandoned everyone below the upper middle class in order to help the Republicans heap largesse onto those who truly don't need any more.

When Democrats stop doing that they'll get back a significant portion of the working class, until then expect those people to continue voting Republican.

[defendandprotect]

129. AND == 300,000 "Democrats" in Florida voted for W Bush ... but they're not blamed for Gore's loss!!

Amazing -- !!

[defendandprotect]

126. True -- if you disregard the attacks on Carter's administration which most voters

weren't aware of --

CIA/FBI had Carter under constant attack --

Carter's rescue mission in dessert was under command of Ollie North!

Second in command -- Secord!


And in the end, we had the October Surprise!!


It has long been obvious that the RW cannot possibly allow anyone to gain the

White House who would disturb their crimes and cover ups!

[Exilednight]

25. Actually, you don't need to win a majority of votes. You only need to win

a plurality of votes.

Second, people seem to forget that there were several left-leaning candidates, not just Nader, who won more votes than the official differential between Bush and Gore.

The Democratic party just likes to single out Nader because they view as a real threat to the status quo.

[BzaDem]

87. Nader wasn't a threat to the status quo at all. He just enabled the Republican to win over the

Democrat, which is exactly what he wanted. Unless you call Republican governance something other than the status quo, you are wrong.

[Exilednight]

140. Republican and Republican LIte governance is the status quo. This is the problem

with the two party system. The choices left are evil and pure evil. It's like going to the doctor and being told "you have lung cancer that will kill you in less than a year, but on the bright side you have bone cancer that will kill you before the lung cancer does."

[quaker bill]

6. Florida in 2000 was "electioneered"

In very much the same way Florida had been electioneered traditionally. None of the techniques used were new and all were in common use throughout much of the south and had been since the end of Jim Crow laws.

Al Gore studied how Lawton Chiles beat JEB and understood how Bill Clinton had carried the state in the face of this manipulation. JEB and GWB upped their game a bit, but so did Al Gore. Part of "upping their game" was a move by the JEB/GWB forces working with Feeney and the repug legislature to ease ballot access rules so that Mr. Nader and a sea of other minor candidates got ballot lines. Mr. Nader played his part and took a slice of votes that largely otherwise would have gone to Al Gore. Mr. Nader was a willing pawn in their game.

Mr. Nader was never going to be anything more than a small slice in the total JEB/GWB package. Making sure that registrars "did not have the time" to enter NAACP voter registration cards turned in near the deadline was another, trunkloads of republican absentee ballots showing up on election day was another, and the votomatics had been a traditional way to lose large numbers Dem votes in Palm Beach and Broward for decades.

JEB/GWB did not so much "steal" the election as they simply ran the election in the normal way republicans had run elections here for decades. In short in any "normal" year in FL, a dem politician had to generate 100,000+ more votes simply to tie the republican in any statewide race. The dems knew this going in. The only thing different in 2000, is that people actually looked at it. The reason they ended up looking at it was that Al Gore and the unions actually turned out about 100,000 to 150,000 more votes than expected. So instead of an easy 9:00 pm victory for GWB as expected, we were counting for another 36 days.

Now had Mr. Nader not been a willing pawn in their game and in that Gore ran a campaign to already sufficient overcome the well understood and typical republican ballot box manipulations, without Nader, Gore walks off with the "surprise" victory.

Was Nader responsible for GWB becoming President, yes, but only in a small way.

Most folks who comment on FL run with the assumption that elections in FL prior to 2000 were actually fair and that JEB/GWB did new stuff to "steal" this race. There is plenty of evidence that the only innovation for 2000 not present since the 1960s, was the change in ballot access to make it easy for candidates like Nader to get a ballot line. The rest of it, while appalling and unfair when looked at, was really quite traditional for FL races.

[DataException]

10. Wow. That's really interesting!

Has there been anything documented on this? I'd really like to read up on this some more.

Thanks!

[quaker bill]

65. I do not know about written accounts

But there was a long piece on Georgia Public radio that spoke to the history of all these practices. It is documented in museum collections, oral histories and on and on. The "ballot spoilage rate" for votomatics was well understood and the number votes lost there in 2000 was understood as "typical". Why is it that funds were found to replace them in the red counties but not the blue ones?

Police blockades? They date back to Selma and Montgomery. Voter roll purges? nothing new, just now they use computers. Putting all the election staff on fulfilling republican absentee ballot requests and none on entering NAACP registration cards? nothing new. Very few polling places and little equipment in traditionally black neighborhoods? Do ya think this was innovative? Better yet, they change the maps and move polling places each election in poor neighborhoods. Often these folks go to the same place they voted last time and there is a poll there, but they are informed the maps have changed and their polling place for this election is 3 miles in some other direction....

This is classic electioneering in the south.

[hobbit709]

8. On your 50%+1. Gore had that.

But the way the system is designed, they were able to steal Florida for sure and who knows what else.
Until we get paper trail verified voting, i don't trust ANY election result from either party.

[hulka38]

11. K&R for logic

[trumad]

12. Fuck Nader

[bluestate10]

36. Second. nt

[K8-EEE]

52. Nader is like Sarah Palin in a way

He doesn't care how he fucks things up, he just want's to seem "important" and "relevant."

2000 doesn't matter now. What matters is he DOES stand a chance in the seing states of having the effect of getting Perry or Romney in WH in 2012. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

[sellitman]

13. Nader to this day is helping the Republicans. Screw the BASTARD!

Every 4 years he surfaces to bitch about the Democrats. He is dead to me.

[Walk away]

16. The country has loads of cranks like Nader....

it's the Democrats that throw away their votes by voting for him that lose elections. You can argue it anyway you want but one vote = one vote and when it doesn't go to the viable Democratic candidate and a Puke wins, it has contributed to that win.

[Exilednight]

27. By your same logic, then every Democrat who votes

for a centrist Democrat helps push a centrist agenda that has continually failed this country for the past 40-50 years.

[treestar]

54. I prefer to push the centrist agenda than the right wing agenda

It's hard to believe it is 2011 and there are people out there who can win an office on platforms including gutting social programs and promoting racism and homophobia and misogyny.

That a Michele Bachman can get any traction at all should tell us something about the failure of the left. Complaining too much that it is not good enough does not work. When are they going to get this?

[Exilednight]

64. It's not the left that has to get anything. It's the party centrist who need to get

that retreading the same tires that lead to the problems that we are in aren't going to fix things.

I'd rather be in the minority that right on the issues than the majority that is leading to the destruction of the nation.

[readmoreoften]

75. +1. Hey somebody has to stand up for the truth.

We can't all have our moral compasses pointed towards whatever Goldman Sachs wants.

[hfojvt]

71. I do not consider Nader to be a crank

He is often right on with the things he says, and he is right to criticize Democrats for not being as left as they claim to be in elections.

It is only his 3rd party splinterism that is self defeating. He could have been a powerful voice running in the primaries, creating a more viable left within the Democratic Party, instead of running on a splinter ticket that only helps Republicans to win.

[Zoeisright]

138. Me too. I hate his slimy little guts.

And when he started taking money from repukes, that sealed it for me and was all the proof I needed. Nader got Bush into power.

[NNN0LHI]

14. Welcome to DU

What brought you, a lifelong "Democrat" voter as you say, to DU only a couple of months ago?

Any special reason? Did you all of a sudden have some kind of a come to Jesus moment?

Don

[Rene]

15. Nader is always just on an ego trip

I'm from CT.....you never hear one word from him between Presidential races.......nothing. He has no right to come into that race without ever having given a single opinion in writing or an appearance, on any topic. He totally disappears to manage his own fortunes until he can mess up that national race.

[iamjoy]

23. Now, Be Fair

Maybe the media only pays attention to Nader every four years, as we near elections in order to feed the flames of the theory that Nader is responsible for Dubya's "win" over Al Gore. If I believed in conspiracies, I would say this is a deliberate effort by the Conservative main stream media to divide Liberals (get us fighting with each other) rather than focusing on our true opponent in the election. Instead, I know it is just that the media loves controversy because it sells. And Ralph Nader is like the once great celebrity who is now just a reality show contestant willing to do almost anything to keep his fame from ending.

I do believe he contributed to Al Gore "losing" in 2000. I realize he was just one factor and there were others, but if you had to point to a single individual's actions, I think Nader gets the plurality if not the majority of the blame. Or maybe not. Nader's actions are a lot simpler than the election fraud, butterfly ballots, hanging/pregnant/dimpled chads and the Supreme Court's bad decision.

But to the original post, if people always voted logically, they wouldn't vote Republican ;)

[Cool Logic]

17. Indeed, Clinton left the keys in the ignition and the engine running; subsequently...

Gore proceeded to blow one of greatest set-ups in the history of presidential politics.

[mistertrickster]

90. Clinton's despicable affair and lying about it is what gave GW a chance to steal

the 2000 election.

Gore did fine, but a lot of "values voters" wanted to punish the sleazy sex addict.

[Cool Logic]

99. Gore would have prevailed if he had won simply won his home state...

However, he ran such a poor campaign that he didn't even carry the district he had previously represented in Congress.

[mistertrickster]

127. I see. Blame the victim. He got robbed and it's his fault because he let

himself get robbed.

[Cool Logic]

147. Gore was a "victim" of the ineptness of the Gore campaign.

Gore owes President Clinton, Clinton supporters, and the Democratic party an apology. Clinton passed him the ball and he fumbled it in the red zone. Subsequently, the US was stuck with eight years of the moronic presidency of GWB.

Although Nader's supporters may have been impractical, Nader didn't get Bush elected, Gore did.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

101. That's a load of crap

If Clinton could have run again, he would have trounced Bush. And it would not have been close. And remember that Gore distanced himself from Clinton. Stupid move.

Gore's other issue was that America seemed more interested in a personality contest than a presidency.

[in_cog_ni_to]

133. Complete and utter BULLSHIT!

Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating! The population was pissed as hell that the rethugs spent all those years and MILLIONS of $$$$$$$$$ to dig up dirt on the Clinton's. I have always blamed the STOLEN election for Gore's loss.

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. More psy-ops? "voted Democrat"?

:rofl:

[dionysus]

92. you got a problem with RW phraseology here? you want to settle this with kickboxin? have it your way

:rofl: <-kickboxin'

:hi:

[Tarheel_Dem]

117. I just think real deception requires a little more smarts, don't you?

:rofl:

[KG]

19. +40k people in FL voted for someone other than bush, gore or nader

George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 2,912,790 48.85% 25
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 2,912,253 48.84% 0
Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 97,488 1.63% 0
Patrick Buchanan Ezola Foster Reform 17,484 0.29% 0
Harry Browne Art Olivier Libertarian 16,415 0.28% 0
Other (+) - - 6,680 0.11% 0

but somehow it all naders fault.

nader makes for a convenient scapegoat for the democrats losing an election they should have won in a walk-off to a knuckle-dragging moron.

[reACTIONary]

33. But he was a COMPASSIONATE knuckle-dragging moron.

That makes all the difference!

[treestar]

58. Parties like that are always on the Ballot

They never have a major effect. But your numbers show Nader did.

If our system was Parliamentary, it would be fine. But it is not. We can't afford indulgences like this (just as the far right cannot afford to indulge in Libertarian Party votes).

My state ballot had a candidate from the "Blue Enigma Party." There are always a few nutcase parties who manage to make the ballot..

[peacetalksforall]

20. Nader is too smart to not know what he was doing. It's not just about

your one vote.

He is a corporatist by his investments and more. And he is not a saint with his money.

But, he was persuasive and won Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, and the others - they sucked votes. I don't think any of them recognized all the decades of arrogance built-up by the Cheney's Rumsfeld's and Bush's and all the Bilderberg Groups. They were ready to fire and they were helped. I see it no other way.

This country probably needs five strong parties, but we don't have that and didn't have it and when it got tight - he, Nader, should have made a move. At the center we had the problem that when one Party enters the vote theft business with the strength that they provided, including thieving machines and handlers. they can do whatever they want with the results - making it look close to protect Nader.

I don't agree with you - if you weren't around DU when it was going on - it may be worthwhile to look in the archives.

[kentuck]

21. More Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader.

Do we hold them blameless?

[Gman]

22. Spin it again any way you want, but the facts are that Nader is directly responsible

For everything since January 2001. I mean everything. When you look at the states where Nader made a difference including FL, FL may not have even happened the way it did and Gore would have been president and we likely would have much happier timea right now.

[Exilednight]

30. That's a big assumption. Given reality, how many of those that voted for Nader would have

turned out to vote at all? The big assumption is that those that voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if Nader was not on the ballot. But truth be told, no one can say that with any real certainty.

In reality, many of those that voted for Nader probably would not have voted for all or would of voted for one of the other left leaning candidates that had just as many votes that split Bush and Gore.

[EFerrari]

32. Nader dropping out would not have cleaned up Florida.

BushCo had been positioning to steal it for years before the election. They weren't going to stop just because of Nader.

[Gman]

59. A close election is the easiest to steal. Nader made it possible to steal FL

The rest doesn't matter. And besides, they weren't planning on stealing FL for years. They only took advantage of a situation that made it possible to steal FL because of Nader.

[EFerrari]

79. Sorry, there are no good numbers for Florida. It wasn't "close"

because you don't know how people voted, do you?

And no, they didn't take advantage of a situation made by Nader. Jeb was there for a reason. Blaming Nader is to ignore the big picture.

[Gman]

135. Redirecting to the "big picture" is only an attempt to take the blame off where it belongs:

Nader.

[bluestate10]

37. Exactly. Too bad that I can REC responses. nt

[Selatius]

42. What about Katherine Harris purging 50 thousand black voters from the rolls? nt

[Gman]

61. The actual results were that Nader made it possible for Bush to steal FL

and the election. I forget how many states now Gore would have won were it not for Nader. The conclusive facts show that Nader is now responsible for everything since Jan 2001.

[Selatius]

94. I hate to say, but to be fair you'd have to include other people as well.

Katherine Harris is but another. The Supreme Court is yet another party to the affair. Nader didn't operate in a vacuum, and I would say laying it all on him excuses what others did as well. And of all the parties that helped Bush into office, Nader was the only one who didn't break the law or intentionally misinterpret the spirit of the law to get a desired political outcome.

[Gman]

134. when Nader filed filed, he did it in a vacuum

and that's where the problem started.

[Selatius]

136. Well, he had the right to file to run. That is democracy.

None of the others that I mentioned respect that. They broke the law.

[Gman]

137. He had the right to run and

the responsibility not to run.

[boston bean]

24. I guess Gore had no responsbility in trying to win those votes. If they would have gone to him

if Nader wasn't on the ballot, and Nader was on the ballot, why is not Gore's responsibility to win those votes?

[Gman]

62. It was Nader's responsibility to not screw up what would be an historically close election

in fact all through history, when the VP runs to succeed the sitting president it is a very close race. Yet Nader chose to run and fuck it up for the entire world.

[matmar]

26. Gore lost his own state of TN. SCOTUS won the election for Bush. Nader was right then and now.

Ralph Nader has been a tireless advocate for the rights of the people for decades. To crap on Nader for AL Gore's inability to win his own state and for the dreadful Supreme Court decision is really getting old.

[elocs]

45. Ralph Nader is a self-serving hypocrite (I have links, not just an opinion):

Ralph Nader's Skeleton Closet (has sources for all the points, not just opinions) http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#antiunion:

A HUGE hypocrite:

Nader wraps himself in the mantle of "public interest" with a personally ascetic style and a focus on structural or "apple pie" issues -- consumer safety, corporate accountability, "citizen power" -- rather than traditional partisan issues. He opposes not conservatives, but arrogant corporate leaders who amass money through public tax breaks, deny any democratic input or inquiry, and viciously attack anyone who challenges them. It's a brilliant strategy.

Unfortunately, Nader has become exactly what he attacks. His organizations allow no public input, intimidate foes and journalists, bust unions, hide almost all details of their finances (to the point of breaking laws), and have amassed millions of dollars - all under Nader's direct and autocratic control. Meanwhile, Ralph has gotten rich off of investments in stock; in other words, by owning and profiting off the very corporations he is attacking.

The dark side of Ralph Nader: http://www.hereinstead.com/DARK-SIDE-OF-RALPH.htm

(Concerning his running again in 2004.)

Nader's justifications for running again are contradictory. One of his arguments is that he'll take more votes away from Bush than from Kerry, an assertion punctured by an analysis of polling data by DontVoteRalph.net. Nader has also said that he would help Kerry get elected. When the two men met on May 19, Nader emerged with Kerry all smiles and chuckles, indicating that he wouldn't campaign in hotly contested states. Then, just a few weeks later, he reversed that decision, saying he might campaign only in swing states. Republicans are reportedly aiding his campaign to get on the ballot in Arizona, and some conservative groups in Oregon that have helped his campaign in hopes of giving an advantage to President Bush were accused Tuesday of violating a federal campaign law that prohibits corporate contributions to presidential candidates.

Not surprisingly, Nader's arguments for running again are being rejected by Democrats and even by the Green Party, which failed to endorse him at its convention in Milwaukee on June 26. Indeed, the Green Party selected David Cobb as its candidate for president largely because he promised to campaign only in safely Republican and Democratic states. On June 22, Nader had a heated exchange with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, according to reporters who overheard people shouting and cursing. After the meeting, from which several people stormed out, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, told CNN, "This is the most historic election of our lifetime, and it is a life-or-death matter for the vulnerable people we represent. For that reason, we can't sacrifice their vulnerability for the efforts being made by Mr. Nader."

"The reality is, much of the fallout from having George Bush get elected is being dealt with by people other than Ralph Nader," concurs the chief of staff to a Democratic member of Congress. She says that very few members will even meet with Nader anymore. "I don't know what Nader does on these issues in between elections, but we're the ones -- progressive members of Congress and their staffs -- who are concerned about families who can't get visas to come see dying relatives, people being turned away from Pell grants, the war in Iraq. Every day it's something else. We know that if Gore were in the White House, we wouldn't be dealing with this. If we sound bitter, it's because we are."

I wonder who Nader thinks he will get to work for him since even a casual internet search will reveal that he treats his people like crap.

[matmar]

141. Except it IS just your opinion

backed up by Fox News-like smear websites that can't be corroborated anywhere else.

If Nader had busted unions I'm pretty sure that kind of information would have been brought out by either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. But strangely that information is only available from someplace called The Skeleton Closet. Gee, I wonder why.

You make me laugh.

[reACTIONary]

29. Folks, this is ancient history.... ...time to MoveOn. (nt)

[bluestate10]

38. The Nader apologists.

Can't move on. They want to clear him to screw up an election for another democrat and expose the nation to 4-8 more years of hellish, religious right leadership. Fuck them and fuck Ralph Nader.

[Modern_Matthew]

31. I think it's a misunderstanding of third party voters.

They're not taking votes away from anyone. It is their sole vote to give.

And they feel so disenfranchised from the big two that the only way they go to the polls is if they don't have to decide between the two.

The electoral college stole the election from Gore. Not third party candidates.

[Nye Bevan]

34. It's like a baseball game where your team loses by one run.

And where you look back through the game, inning by inning, identifying every mistake or missed opportunity that would have tipped the game in your favor. Clinton keeps his penis in his pants in the Oval Office? No President George W Bush, no invasion of Iraq. Gore fully embraces Clinton's help on the campaign trail? No W. One week before the election, Nader appears with Gore on a stage, acknowledges policy differences, but states that Gore is vastly preferable to Bush and urges his supporters to vote for Gore? No W.

[bluestate10]

40. Nader attacked Gore until the very end. Nader gave Bush a complete free pass.

Nader is a bastard that is directly responsible for the current state that the nation and world is in. Nader was Bush's enabler.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

146. BRILLIANT!! SIMPLY BRILLIANT!!! I've argued this for MANY years.

The chain of events has a direct effect on the ultimate outcome. Though Clinton's approval rating was the highest ever, due to the health of the economy and the attacks from the Right Wing, by the end of his term, the American public suffered from Clinton-fatigue. Monica, Paula Jones, Whitewater. It was too much. I totally understand why Gore distanced himself. But he was put in a very unfair position. The Republicans can't run on the economy, so they must run on values. And Gore had unfairly received the residue of the Monica affair.

We liberals are wrong when we foolishly believe that Americans will always be persuaded by facts. The average American is moved most by fear, anger, hatred. Republicans have perfected this art of manipulation. I think Gore was trying to calculate the best approach. He was going to lose either way he went.

[bluestate10]

35. Do we have to debate this again?

A group of recalcitrant Nader voters cost the country 8 lost years. About time for them to accept that and move on like the rest of us have. There WAS a difference between Bush and Gore, Nader was dead wrong then and is dead wrong now.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[Fuddnik]

39. Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris purged over 80,000 likely Dem voters.

Not to mention voter harassment and intimidation in places like Jacksonville. Or the shutdown of the recount by repukes in Miami-Dade.

Or the fact that Pat Buchanan took more votes away from Bush than Nader did for Gore. Or the fact that in ANY recount scenario, Gore would have won Florida. And that 5 Supreme Court fascists elected Bush.

I voted for Gore. If I had it to do over again, I'd have voted for Nader.

Ralph Nader did more for the average American in the '60s and '70s, than any politician during the last 50 years.

[elocs]

41. The Dark Side of Ralph Nader:

http://www.hereinstead.com/DARK-SIDE-OF-RALPH.htm

In 2000, again with the Green Party, he ran a full-fledged campaign, raising and spending money to get on the ballot in all 50 states. He drew huge crowds at places like Madison Square Garden in New York and Key Arena in Seattle. While he assured Democrats that he wouldn't campaign late in the election season in key battleground states, he reneged on that promise, zeroing in on Florida, Oregon and New Hampshire in the last few weeks before the election.

Few analysts predicted just how close the election would be, but a number of people who had worked with Nader over the years feared that his run for president would be disastrous. "When he announced at a big gathering in Washington, I was the first person to stand up and say, 'How can you say there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans?'" says Gary Sellers, who was one of the original Raiders. "There was a big hush in the room. He had no response." Nader was the best man at Sellers' wedding; they no longer speak to each other.

Nader's share of the votes was the margin that threw New Hampshire into Bush's column and accounted for the difference in Florida that cast the state into the post-election turmoil that ended only with the 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision in Bush vs. Gore. Nader nearly cost Gore other states as well, especially New Mexico. Every study after the election determined that almost all of Nader's votes would have gone to Gore if Nader hadn't run, but Nader continues to insist that he bore no responsibility.

In the 2000 election Nader and the Supreme Court are not an either/or proposition. It was Nader who by his actions allowed the Supreme Court to hand the election to Bush.

From what I remember of that election, the deal was that Democrats who wanted to vote for Nader would do so if they lived in states that were clearly red, not battleground states. To this day Nader is still washing his hands to ensure us that there is no blood on them, that he was not responsible for Gore's loss.

[bluestate10]

43. Nader has more than Gore's blood on his hands.

He was Bush's enabler. And as such, he must be assigned responsibility for every death due to 9/11, even the ones happening now due to toxin related exposures. Nader must be assigned responsibility for the deaths and permanent injury of tens of thousands of young americans in two wars. Nader must be assigned responsibility for the near bankrupting of the USA and the incapacity of the USA to now properly care for the elderly and less fortunate in society. Nader must be assigned responsibility for the USA still being under that thumb of big oil, more so that in 2000. Nader must be assigned responsibility for no climate change legislation being passed for eight years, while phony science was used to justify lack of passage. Fuck Ralph Nader. As far as this poster is concerned, nader already has a spot reserved for himself in hell.

[elocs]

46. Yes, Nader has a lot of blood on his hands. He's a publicity seeking hypocrite. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Gore didn't convince the voters of the left to vote for him in Florida. Who's fault is that?

It's the candidates responsibility to convince voters to vote for him. He failed to do so.

[chill_wind]

44. Welcome to DU.

I hope you brought your asbestos flame-proof suit. It's not hard to see that people are very locked into their opinions on this (and lots of) subjects.

:hi:

"But I still think people who pretend that Nader was to blame should explain why the number X of votes that Nader got somehow count more than the votes lost because of the reasons quoted above and other reasons."

Good point.

[Mendocino]

48. Karl - "Hey George, here's my plan,

We'll steal this thing at the election box, and then get the left to blame Nader. This will further divide them. It's a win-win situation."

George-"Good work Turdblossom, I can always count on you for a twofer."






:evilgrin:

[CanSocDem]

49. Many Americans...

...still suffer under the delusion that Democrats are not owned by Corporate America.

You're so funny.

.

[treestar]

53. No you don't need one vote over 50%

You need the Electoral College votes.

[Honeycombe8]

55. I disagree. Ross Perot was part of the reason Clinton won, and Nader was part of the reason Bushwon

It's as simple as that.

You can make excuses and try to find ways to say the votes they got had no effect. But the fact is....that % of votes they took, that would've gone to another candidate, did have an effect.

That's why these people run. They have an effect on things.

[Exilednight]

78. There is a flaw in your theory. You, like many others in this thread, are assuming that those

that voted for Nader would have voted for the Democratic candidate, or for that matter, would have voted at all. Nader had a pretty decent GOTV and new registration process that was impressive.

[bluestate10]

81. The history of such people is that the are recalcitrant, and they vote.

If Nader had pulled out, Gore would have gotten enough of their votes to win. I ask you a question. It was obvious that Florida and several more battleground states the victory margin would be within a percentage point, if that. Yet Nader re-doubled his efforts to pick up votes in all those states, even though he had absolutely NO remote chance of winning.

[Exilednight]

83. "The history of such people is that the are recalcitrant, and they vote."

Prove it. Please post a study that backs that statement up.

"I ask you a question." What is your question?

[coalition_unwilling]

56. No one held a gun to Gore's head and forced him to concede. He

could have (and in retrospect should have) fomented a constitutional crisis by declaring the USSC decision null and void and proceeding with transition team plans.

Gore got more votes than Bush even with Nader on the ballot.

[Arkana]

69. Yeah, I mean it's not like with the Republican-dominated Supreme Court

that Gore would have been treated by the media as the pissed-off baseball player who screams at the ump because he doesn't like the call at the plate.

The Republican USSC would have voted in favor of Bush regardless of how hard Gore fought. Sure, he could have kicked up a fuss--but don't pretend you don't know the result wouldn't have been exactly the same.

[coalition_unwilling]

95. I think we may be talking past one another (if I'm reading you

correctly, that is). I'm saying Gore could have publicly declared the USSC decision in Bush v. Gore null and void, thereby fostering a constitutional crisis. What would the USSC have then done? As Andrew Jackson is reported to have said, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."

Instead Gore conceded and what did we get? War crimes and crimes against humanity.

So let's consider what might have been had Gore not been so accomodative of the corrupted USSC. (Aside from the flawed reasoning in Bush v. Gore, at a minimum Scalia and Thomas should have recused themselves from the case.)

[stevenleser]

143. A constitutional crisis in a Prez election throws it into the House. We still would have gotten Bush

The key moment when the problems with Election 2000 became unfixable in terms of the rightful winner winning was when the Florida state legislature and senate voted to give Bush Florida's electors. Anything after that which contradicted it would have sent two sets of electors to DC to vote in the electoral college which would have triggered the election being thrown into the House. The Republicans controlled the House and more than half the state delegations at the time the electoral college met so we would have gotten Bush.

Even worse, this throws the VP election into the senate where at the time, Democrats still controlled. We would have gotten VP Lieberman and there is no telling what that would have done for Lieberman. He might have had a chance at the Democratic nomination in 2008 as a result.

[LWolf]

63. Of course it is. I've never voted for Nader, either,

but I have enough integrity not to blame him for Democratic losses.

[Arkana]

68. Without Ralph Nader crowing that the Dems and Reps were the same

for days on end, Al Gore's campaign, badly run as it was, would have won by enough in Florida to keep it from being stolen.

[lib2DaBone]

80. Fer Chris Sake.. get off the RALPH NADAR thing already... old news...

[Curmudgeoness]

82. I agree with you. Nader was not the real problem.

And in 2012, there could possibly be another third party candidate who will get some votes. But to assume that those votes would have automatically gone to the Dem is simplistic. When any party goes too far from what is expected of it, there is a good chance that they will lose votes---some for a third party and some staying home.

Remember this, no one would vote for a third party candidate if their party of choice is not turning away from them.

[Mendocino]

84. We should ask ourselves two questions.

The first is was the election stolen?

If you agree that it was, then what prevented the thieves, from pushing the failure to elect Gore to the left? If they could manipulate the election enough to steal it, what prevented them from putting the onus on Nader?

Straight from the Karl Rove Playbook.

[YellowCosmicSun]

85. Would Bush have won if Nader wasn't in the race?

Nader might as well have been bankrolled by the GOP.

[stevenleser]

144. And that is the point. It's not just a matter of raw votes, he attacked Gore & Dems and

undermined their campaigns. Without that harassment, who is to say how many votes Gore and downticket Democrats would have received. Nader may have well been the reason Democrats lost the US House as well which even more contributes to his culpability in what followed.

Of course, in a very straightforward way, we know that a considerably higher margin of the 90,000 Nader votes who would have still voted had Nader not been in the race would have gone to Gore. It's pretty easy to conclude that margin would have exceeded 1000 votes, more than enough to have given Gore the election.

[mistertrickster]

86. This is a very long winded red herring.

Bush "won" Florida by 537 votes.

Nader got 97,000 votes.

If Nader had not been running, most of those votes would have gone to Gore, and Gore would have won.

Long story short, your analysis is wrong.

[mistertrickster]

89. "In a democracy, every vote counts the same." Not in our democracy.

Every state gets two electoral college votes -- for their two Senators -- no matter how big the state is.

Montana gets two and so does California. A vote in Montana has a much bigger impact on the outcome of the presidential race than a vote in California.

In short, if every vote really counts the same, then Al Gore would have won in 2000 because he got over half a million more votes than Bush did.

[dpibel]

139. Small matter of fact

Every state gets two electoral votes per senator--two each.

Doin' good so far.

AND they get one electoral vote per representative.

That's why California and New York and Texas and Florida actually matter much more.

[dionysus]

91. thanks for voting "Democrat" your whole life. nt

[mistertrickster]

93. Hehe, don't ya hate that. I do. I call the other side the Republic Party now. nt

[Jim Lane]

97. We're right to blame Nader, even though it's wrong to blame Nader exclusively.

Consider the example mentioned in some other responses: Katherine Harris. As Florida's Secretary of State, she engineered a purge of 50,000 voter registrations of people who were entitled to vote and who would have voted overwhelmingly Democratic. They've since been restored to the rolls, but that was too late for them to vote for Gore. I believe that, without Harris's despicable act, Gore would have become President.

Would you excuse Harris on the basis that you think Gore ran a shitty campaign and the Supreme Court decided wrongly and so on? Would you say it was wrong to blame Harris because, even after her purge, other actors could still have done things differently and put Gore in the White House? I doubt that any DUers would buy that argument. When it comes to Katherine Harris, people understand that an event can have more than one cause.

Nader had a legal right to run. It was reasonably foreseeable, however, that his decision to do so would have the net effect of hurting Gore vis-a-vis Bush. Nader's campaign thereby carried the risk of causing Bush to become President. I would blame Nader for exposing the country to this risk even if Gore had become President. That the Nader-created risk actually eventuated, however, makes the case for blaming Nader even stronger.

Yes, I also blame Harris, and the Brooks Brothers Riot, and the Supreme Court Five, but there's not much reason to denounce them here. Unlike Nader, they don't have a horde of supporters posting on DU.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

100. There was NO reason to vote against Al Gore

Some people in our party simply want to embrace failure.

[AtomicKitten]

103. In 2000 Nader said he would not campaign as a spoiler and would avoid the swing states ...

He lied.

[joeybee12]

118. I recall all the Dems lingin up to fight for Gore after it was obvious Bush was trying to steal...

Oh wait, that never happened.

You're right, it's not nader's fault, it's the spinless dems we elect.

[stevenleser]

145. Despite your sarcasm, your contention is correct. The Dems did line up to fight for Gore.

The problem is, we didnt have enough elected Democrats in Florida where it mattered. The state house and senate were tilted Republican in veto-proof numbers. Jeb Bush was Governor.

[Motown_Johnny]

130. I'm sorry but you just don't make any sense at all

For example:


"The fallacy is assuming that only the votes that actually pushed one over the margin are the ones that mattered. In some sense, saying that "spoiler candidate x" is to blame for a loss is akin to saying that, in a country with 100 billion people, where a candidate lost an election because he received 50 billion votes minus one, the nail on the street that blew the tires of one couple on their way to the ballots was the determining factor. As if these two people that didn't show up were the only ones in the country and the nail was the only force at play."



Yes, those two people not voting would be the determining factor (presuming they were both going to vote for the one who lost by 1 vote, your parable ignores this detail).

If you went shopping and found two identical items, one of which cost 1% more, you would purchase the less expensive item and that 1% would be the determining factor.

That is how elections work. The difference in the number of votes between the candidates determines the winner.

You can blame anything and anyone you want, that doesn't make you right. It is the people who voted for Nader (not Nader himself) who threw the election to Bush.