Ralph Nader wasn't the only person that cost Al Gore the election in 2000.

[kentuck]

Just so we can discuss it from a factual standpoint. Al Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes.

However, a lot of people were pissed off at Bill Clinton, including Al Gore, because of the Monica Lewinsky affair. He did not seek Clinton's help in states like Arkansas or Tennessee, which he lost.

Also, in Florida, Bush received more Democratic votes than did Ralph Nader. Who were those Democrats? I doubt that they were "liberals"? And why did they vote for Bush?

Furthermore, elections are between different people and different ideas. No one is sworn to vote for the Democratic candidate, no matter what. There is no blood oath. People can vote for whomever they wish. If you are unable to persuade a person to vote for you, perhaps it is not the voters fault?

It gets rather stale to hear people sing that one note: "Ralph Nader caused Al Gore to lose the election". He may have been part of the reason Gore lost but he was not the only reason. The major reason Gore lost was the US Supreme Court. They were wrong to decide an election that should have been handled by the state of Florida. They were manipulated by the right-wingers. They stole the election.

[quinnox]

1. Gore lost his home state

Its just a weeeee bit important to win your home state when you are running for president. Jesus, this isn't rocket science. Gore blew it. And then, he still should have won anyway, but the Supreme Court was full of Bush stooges.

[leftyohiolib]

20. what the supreme's did was illegal and shouldnt have been allowed

[karynnj]

22. That's not fair

Consider that Obama (or Kerry) could have run one of the worst campaigns ever and not lost his home state, Illinois (Massachusetts). Tennessee is often lost by winning Democratic campaigns. In fact, this flies against one often stated "truism" expressed before 2008 - that a Southern Democrat had the best chance of winning as Southerns would be comfortable with him/her.

Consider that a better version of Romney could have won the Presidency while losing Massachusetts.

[Peregrine Took]

31. Because he wasn't pro gun. n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

60. I think that you are close.

Very close.

Logically, the phrase "pro gun" means an advocate for more gun ownership.

But Gore didn't need to be an advocate for more gun ownership. There are many Democrats who don't own firearms but nevertheless respect the inherent right of self-defense and respect the right to gun ownership under the Second Amendment.

The adoption of the AWB was viewed by many as being undemocratic in nature, including those who believed that the proponents rushed through legislation without a convincing argument that a ban on certain cosmetic features would achieve the goal that they purportedly wanted. The was confirmed by the loss of Congressional seats in 1994 by some long-term Democrats who voted in favor of the AWB. This was also confirmed by Bill Clinton by his analysis in his autobiography.

Gore didn't need to be a pro-gun advocate. Nonetheless, he could have otherwise been a pro-gun advocate and won in his State of Tennessee. He could have been an advocate for the democratic process and due process of law by which fair hearings are held to vote on legislation which is rationally related to stated goals. The earlier passage of the AWB, which some perceived as including irrational elements and being contrary to traditional American values, didn't help him.

He needed to be pro-Second Amendment, with or without being pro-gun.

[proud2BlibKansan]

69. Bingo

[Recursion]

2. There are a million what-if's, of which Nader is one

If there had been no AWB, he probably would have carried Tennessee. If he had campaigned more in NH or WV he could have taken them. No blue dress, he could have carried Arkansas.

Also, while I'm no Nader fan, I do have to point out that Al Gore did actually win Florida but a corrupt court stopped the recount.

[byeya]

5. You got there first: Gore won Florida! The Filthy Five on the SC stole it from Gore and Mr Gore did

not put up much of a fight either.
People forget, or gloss over, the fact the Vice President couldn't carry his home state.

[HardTimes99]

8. No one held a gun to Gore's head and forced him to concede. Gore chose to

concede after the SCOTUS ruling. And not one Dem in the Senate would accept the CBC's challenge to the Electoral College. Oh well, it only cost the lives of 1,000,000+ Iraqis. I suppose they'll blame Nader for the War in Iraq too.

[onehandle]

3. Time is sequential.

1 - The GOP skimmed the voter rolls and made it harder to vote.
2 - Gore ran badly.
3 - Nader cost Gore ten thousand+ votes out of 97,000, minimum.
4 - SCOTUS stopped the count.

Without Nader, no event four.

[we can do it]

7. Exactly....Also this is not the Ralph Nader appologist underground.

[HardTimes99]

15. Excuse me, Ralph Nader has the same right to run

for President as any native-born American over the age of 35.

That's not being a 'Ralph Nader apologist' (whatever the fuck that odious phrase means). That's Civics 101.

[we can do it]

23. Fuck Nader. This country wouldn't be so fucked up if he hadn't stayed in the race.

Who said he didn't have the right to run. Why don't you start up a fan boy site?

Fuck his both parties are the same bullshit....Fuck the simpletons who believed it......Fuck the supreme court for installing booosh

[onehandle]

34. So Hillary should have run third party and handed to election over to Palin?

I mean McCain.

Nader should have pulled out, after he had his say, before it was too late to pull his name off of the ballot.


That's Responsibility 101.

[frylock]

45. nor is it the ralph nader hater forum

[HardTimes99]

9. There are many steps between your steps 3 and 4. Did you forget the

butterfly ballots where a predominantly Jewish district gave Pat Buchanan 4,000+ votes (way more than Bush's supposed margin of victory). Even Buchanan himself could smell that dead fish from a mile away.

Stop blaming Nader for Gore's ineptitude and Republican thuggery. In American politics you lock down your base first before you move to the center. As in warfare, so in politics - you leave an unanchored flank at your peril. See Joseph Hooker at Chancellorsville. Eesh.

[onehandle]

12. That would go between 2 and 3. Same results. Nader elected Bush.

Time is sequential.

[HardTimes99]

18. Um. Step 3-A. Notorious anti-semite Pat Buchanan gets 4,000 Jewish votes, thereby

costing Gore 4,000+ votes minimum.

[markiv]

32. sounds like Nader's number 3 robbed Gore of his right to number 2

candidates have a right to run badly without consequences? i did not know that

that factor that made gore lose was his SPITE for clinton, resentment that the monica affair cost him what he thought he earned in his 8 year apprentice

[bvar22]

39. Very Important step before your Step One.

The Anti-LABOR, Free Trading, Deregulating, Privatizing, Environmentally negligent, Centrist Clinton Administration created a huge vacuum on The Left.

Vacuums are filled, in Physics as well as Politics.
Its The LAW.

Despite what his detractors like to claim, Nader was NOT some SUPERMAN who single highhandedly knocked the Wheels Off the entire Democratic Party.

Nader was a mild Mannered, Nerdy, Consumer Activist who merely stepped into the Empty Space on the Political Spectrum.
If not Nader, it would have been someone else.

Blaming Nader, while it makes some feel good,
is not an effective way to deal with the real problem.
Vacuums ARE filled.

[onehandle]

40. That's nice. And yes. It was Nader.

Time is sequential.

[bvar22]

44. Your "Time is sequential" mantra...

...supports MY position,
not yours.

[byeya]

54. I'm gonna get a "Time is sequential" tattoo - it'll complement the one that says "Moom"

My mother was so proud of me for that last one.

[JackRiddler]

74. Some things are crimes.

Nader didn't commit any.

There was election fraud.

Then there was a judicial coup d'etat.

Then:

"Things would be easier if this was a dictatorship."

And we had a dictatorship, especially after the 9/11 event. Its accomplishments are no longer subject to question. The present elected administration has not overturned but consolidated and moved to legalize the essential elements of the "unitary executive" and the permanent state of war, sometimes under new branding. Pretense to rule of law or democracy has been abandoned wherever it is said to impinge on national security. We live under a permanent state of exception, emergency rule.

Blaming Nader is a form of denial for those who like their targets small, harmless, and historically distant. Twelve years ago, Nader ran a legal campaign. He didn't execute a coup d'etat. He didn't oversee the post-9/11 societal transformation. He didn't consolidate the achievements of the new authoritarian statism after the departure of Bush.

[onehandle]

76. Yeah, but he elected George W. Bush.

TIME IS SEQUENTIAL.

[pnwmom]

4. No, but he was the only progressive who purposely worked to assist Bush against Gore.

And he was the single person who controlled enough votes to change the outcome of the election.

[HardTimes99]

6. Gore did not 'lose' the election. Gore received more votes than Bush, both

nationally and in Florida.

The Supreme Court staged a bloodless coup that installed Bush and stuck a knife in the back of the principle of one man, one vote.

I suppose it was fitting that it happened in the millennial year.

[markiv]

10. you never hear these same people thanking Perot for 1992

Perot got 19 PERCENT!!!!! One of those votes was mine. While he drew democrats, most feel he took more votes from Bush than Clinton.

and frankly, although I dont follow republican sites, I've never heard a republican gripe about Perot in 1992, where the factor was far more clear

Clinton went ahead with all of the Policies I voted for Perot to avoid, and more

[HardTimes99]

11. Hear, hear! - nt

[onehandle]

13. Thank you, Ross Perot.

Fuck you, Ralph Nader.

And they complained like Hell about Perot.

[markiv]

27. i've never heard them complain about perot nt

[onehandle]

28. The Clinton economy eventually healed their wounds.

Nader's effect will go on for the rest of our lives.

[markiv]

30. the titanic rose, before it sank, too

yes, i very much enjoyed the clinton years, and voted for him in 1996, because i WAS better off than 4 years before

'Nader's effect will go on for the rest of our lives.'

And I'm still feeling Clinton negatively today too. the massive h-1b increases he singed while in office torpedoed everything i worked for and i'm FAR WORSE OFF on the whole

the reality of h-1b is despicable, and totally disenfranchiesed me politically and economically. Obama is trying to shove a huge H-1b increase down our throats THIS WEEK!

[bvar22]

41. WOW.... Nader must be a SUPERMAN!

...or maybe the problem wasn't Nader,
but the Centrist Clinton Administration creating a big vacuum on The Left?

Which explanation seems more reasonable?

[byeya]

14. Did you vote for Perot? Wow. I didn't but Ross sure was right about NAFTA wasn't he?

I've posted his 19% here several times but certain people have their minds closed and refuse to see the facts of the stolen election.

[markiv]

26. he was right about NAFTA and all it stood for, we've heard the sucking sound of globalism

ever since with all the crap that clinton bush and obama have been shoving down our throats with WTO, NAFTA, MFN-China, H-1b visas and South Korea free trade agreement (thanks Obama, makes a lot of sense that they can produce cheaper since we BORROW FROM CHINA To pay for their f--king defense!!!!)

talk about screwing American workers, forcing them to borrow to pay for another's defense, then surrender to them economically because of the disadvantage

[byeya]

36. Man,. you've got that right. And you're not even talking about TPP which may be worse for workers

than the above combined.
The funny little man from Texas knew what he was talking about and - apparently - cared about providing jobs here in the USA. I was too thick to overcome my lifelong habit of always voting for Democrats.

And - yes, we are borrowing from China and part of that is to protect the 50% of Iraqi oil that is going to China.
I'd like Mr Perot's take on that.

[markiv]

37. there's a reason the 2 parties LOVE gay and abortion issues

and I'm not saying that individuals who feel strongly about either issue are wrong

but BOTH parties interest in both issues are 100 percent raw cynicism

these issues wouldnt get the time of day, if they didnt evenly SPLIT the middle and working classes, who would otherwise unite and oppose all the globalism that is tearing at them economically

i could go on and on with evidence, but the basic reality has already been stated above, and the best arguements are short and simple

[RainDog]

38. yes. this is the reality

culture war issues are important - they DO matter.

but people are also disgusted by the "watch what this hand is doing so you don't see what the other hand is doing" politics.

Democrats don't offer populist Republicans a reason to vote for them when economic policies are all geared toward making the lives of the 1% more profitable at the expense of everyone else.

[markiv]

42. excellent response

so few seem to grasp that stating that point is not saying the culture issues are not important, too many see things as black and white

"but people are also disgusted by the "watch what this hand is doing so you don't see what the other hand is doing" politics"

well put. i was once bored on a long drive through the bible belt, and baat christian radio network was about all there was. but listening to that christalized this point to me - they had a program where a guest was making this exact point - that they were being played by the republicans, that the republicans talked a good game about 'family values' while supporting economic policies that tore families apart

these people would be total economic allies on the things that matter most to so many people, yet so many on BOTH sides are so poisened by the social issues, that they could never unite and work together

and that's the way the powers that be, who hold so much sway over BOTH parties, want it

[byeya]

43. I agree with you here too. I think that there are a few(or more) backroom Democratic strategists who

are not happy at today's Supreme Court decision because it's a big step on the way to equality and the Dems want to keep the Gays and Lesbians hungry, ever reaching for the brass ring but not getting it just like the Goopers want abortion legal so they can harvest the anti-choice votes. If the right to choose ever became iron clad, they would lose their wedge issue and these single issue voters might go elsewhere.
Like Lenny Bruce said about how pushers operate: Find your strungout client and make him wait.

[markiv]

46. another excellent response nt

[hfojvt]

55. Perot is much harder to judge

Unless there is some poll defining it, I have no way of knowing if Perot voters, had they not had the option to flush away their vote on Perot, if they would have voted for Bush or for Clinton.

I didn't vote for Clinton either, but I hardly saw Perot as some kind of progressive alternative.

Maybe conservatives don't complain about Perot because it is such ancient history.

Further, I suspect that the reason Nader apologism has started again is to start a theme like this

"so vote 3rd party in 2014 and help Republicans win with a clear conscience"

[markiv]

56. 'with a clear conscience'

maybe these folks feel conscience is a 2 way street, and are owed more than 'forget about your silly concerns, we DEMAND your vote!!!!!'

[hfojvt]

58. nobody is demanding anything

go ahead and help Republicans win if you think that is gonna make the world a better place.

The only thing I am demanding is that you understand just how fucking stupid I think people who do that are.

And yes, I do know that most elected Democrats at the federal level are fucking useless. But if they cannot be defeated in primaries, then a 3rd party vote is counter-productive.

[markiv]

61. 'go ahead and help Republicans win'->a page from Orwell's 'Animal Farm'

your pitch might have more resonence, if it didnt sound like a page out of Orwell's 'Animal Farm'. It's about a party that offers the masses little more than fear of a bogyman

(Jones is the farmer the animals ran off in their revolution)

The mystery of where the milk went to was soon cleared up. It was mixed every day into the pigs' mash. The early apples were now ripening, and the grass of the orchard was littered with windfalls. The animals had assumed as a matter of course that these would be shared out equally; one day, however, the order went forth that all the windfalls were to be collected and brought to the harness−room for the use of the pigs. At this some of the other animals murmured, but it was no use. All the pigs were in full agreement on this point, even Snowball and Napoleon. Squealer was sent to make the necessary explanations to the others.

"Comrades!" he cried. "You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well−being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The wholemanagement and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades," cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, "surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?"
Now if there was one thing that the animals were completely certain of, it was that they did not want Jones back. When it was put to them in this light, they had no more to say. The importance of keeping the pigs in good health was all too obvious. So it was agreed without further argument that the milk and the windfall apples (and also the main crop of apples when they ripened) should be reserved for the pigs alone

[hfojvt]

66. I am not pitching anything

just talking about how elections work

something you seem to want to pretend to not understand.

People like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan are not bogeymen, They are very much real.

And the damage that George W. Bush did was very real as well. Or are you in denial about that as well?

[markiv]

67. 'They are very much real. '

so was farmer Jones, as far as that story went

'something you seem to want to pretend to not understand. '

funny, that's exactly what I see in you

[creeksneakers2]

64. I've heard RWs claim that lots of times

Its an established part of RW folklore.

I don't buy it. Clinton beat Bush by 5.5 points. For Perot voters to have given it to Bush, they would have had to vote for Bush about two to one. Most polls at the time showed Perot drawing about equally from both sides. What evidence other than RW folklore that Perot took that many votes from Bush?

Clinton won an electoral vote landslide, with 370 electoral votes, so even if enough Perot voters went for Bush to change the popular vote outcome, there still would have been a great chance that Clinton would have won.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. At this point...they need the two minutes of hate

[bvar22]

48. Nailed It.

They took such a beating last week trying to defend the indefensible
that they are clutching at ANYTHING hijack the conservation.
Smells like desperation.

[Zorra]

17. Thank you. Nader's vote count was insignificant, relative to the votes that Reagan/Bush Democrats

cast for Bush.

A) Nader voters were comprised of Greens, Libertarians, Independents, and a few Democrats. Gore would not necessarily have gotten these votes anyway.

B) Reagan/Bush Democrats voting for Bush probably equalled or exceeded the number of Nader voters. This was doubly damaging, because every one of these traitors voted republican, causing us to not only lose Democratic votes, but republicans to gain Democratic votes. 2,000, 000 Democratic votes for Bush equaled a net gain of 4,000,000 votes for Bush.

Conservative Democrats are dangerous to the Democratic party, and are a threat todemocracy and the people of the United States.

[magellan]

24. Sanity. Thank you.

The idea that the people who voted for Nader would have turned to Gore if Nader hadn't run is unfounded. And your second point is one that's consistently overlooked. People still don't seem to get how dangerous Third Way Dems are to the real change so many of us claim to want.

[noiretextatique]

47. actually, bush democrats greatly exceeded the number of nader voters

as i recall, bush democrats approximately twice the number of nader voters. talk about no difference! i believe nader was referring to consevacrats in his now infamous (and very accurate) "no difference" statement.

[RainDog]

19. No, people were pissed off at Clinton because of NAFTA

people were pissed off AT DEMOCRATS because they want and wanted something better than "republican-lite."

THAT is the sentiment that drove the Nader candidacy.

I offered to vote swap with someone in Florida so that Nader could get enough votes for funding (which was another BIG reason people intended to vote for him, to make it possible to build a third party.) My vote swap would've allowed that person to vote for Gore in a state where it mattered, so that both third-party funding and a Democratic win could be possible.

Just as in EVERY election since 2000, Republicans have concentrated on a few swing states and have been extra attentive to ways to suppress the vote for Democrats in those states.

This is why Theresa LaPore, former airline steward for Adnan Khashoggi (an arms dealer favored by Bush Sr., Perle, Norquist, the BCCI crew, etc.) switched to the Democratic Party and helped to design the Palm Beach "butterfly ballot" that confused so many people. (The Wall Street Journal reported abut LaPore's part in voter fraud attempts at the time.)

DEMOCRATS OUGHT TO LOOK AT WHY SO MANY PEOPLE DON'T FEEL THAT THE PARTY REPRESENTS THEM ON ECONOMIC ISSUES.

...rather than focus on the fact that Nader was able to draw voters. What are YOU doing wrong, Democratic Party, that made Nader's candidacy viable as a protest vote for so many people?

[we can do it]

25. People were pissed because Clinton got a blow job and they didn't. Get the facts straight.

[frylock]

52. a fucking preposterous and simple minded view..

people didn't give a fuck about that as evidenced by Clinton's popularity at the end of his term.

[markiv]

33. NAFTA, MFN-China, H-1b visas

Clinton took a baseball bat to the middle and working classes

Tech used to be a secure field - clinton finished it off, it's never been the same since

[karynnj]

21. The Florida "Democrats" issue was looked at after 2000

There really was nothing there. There were many people who had registered as Democrats in their youth, when there were Dixiecrats in most of the south. For those not interested in voting in primaries, there was no reason to change registration. So, in areas - like I think the panhandle there are Democrats who may have voted for the Republican for the last at least 4 elections.

[JackRiddler]

50. I see, so by this logic...

Bush voters are not really responsible for Bush winning, but Nader voters are. It's only natural that Dixiecrats vote that way, whereas Nader voters were unnatural!

[karynnj]

62. Not following you - of course those who voted for Bush are responsible that Bush

became President. True in every state that he won and Florida where they made it close enough.

I was answering the comment that there were "Democrats" who voted for Bush and questioning why "Democrats" would do that. Now there are some registered in a party who will sometimes vote for the other party.

I vote for an additional villain - the media. Here, the media presented them as similar on the issues - a conservative Democrat and a moderate Republican. They then spun Bush as human, likable and nice - and Gore as wooden, elitist and boring. The media deserves a huge amount of the blame. (Consider all you know of both their background stories and ask if there was a LOT of biased framing there - who blew up frogs? Note that they used the SAME image for Kerry 4 years later. In that case, in spite of the fact that he was engaging enough to win the Presidency of the Yale student Union as a Junior and Senior - in spite of being a Democrat in a majority Republican school, was able to lead the vets for an effective few days in DC keeping the peace, and he won both the LT Governor and Senate nominations over other candidates with the party and media support. )

[Fire Walk With Me]

29. Florida was rigged. Bush himself said "We'll win in FL. You can bet on it." While sitting next to

Jeb. Presented as a video clip in "Fahrenheit 9/11".

Gloat boy was gloating, just as he always did when rigging something in his favor, when not playing by the actual rules of the country.


Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

[markiv]

35. Clinton ushered in the Democratic pro-free trade/Globalist era

selling off the economic interests of the middle and working classes in exchange for progress on social issues

problem is, for most working and middle class people, the ability to earn a living on their own is their most important 'social issue'. i know it sure as hell is/was mine. wanting to be able to earn a living in something i spent years of my life working hard for in school and student loans is not 'selfish', and i resent being basically told i should be ok with being sold out because of issues other people care about, when they dont give a flying f--k about mine

clinton took a baseball bat to that with WTO NAFTA MFN-China and my favorite, H-1b visas

sure, he was no worse than Bush Sr would have been, but that's saying......what?

[JackRiddler]

49. It says a lot about people which they choose to remember...

Is it

a) a third party candidate who ran a legal and clean campaign, and whose share of the vote made no difference whatsoever, given that even in Florida, more votes were cast for Gore than for Bush;

or

b) election fraud by the losing side to steal Florida, followed by a judicial coup d'etat to suspend constitutional process and thus give the presidency to the losing side.

Anyone who focuses on a) as a primary concern, or who distorts its significance, has made their decision to condemn a trivial non-conformity while ignoring historic criminality. I suspect denial has everything to do with it. Most people would rather blame their troubles irrationally on some powerless hippies than confront the reality of the Evil Empire in which they live.

[kentauros]

70. Nice analysis.

And thanks for posting it!

[JackRiddler]

73. Thanks.

[hfojvt]

51. Of course, he wasn't alone

but he was a key. Take him away, far far away (please) and Bush loses. That's a simple fact. An astoundingly simple fact that neither Nader nor Nader supporters can seem to wrap their head around - that motherfucking asshole piece of shit Nader was ON THE WRONG FUCKING SIDE. He was on the side helping to elect Bush.

Why did some Democrats vote for Bush instead of Gore?

Maybe because they listened to the media, who kept saying "well, there is not all that much difference between Bush and Gore, they are both moderates."

Maybe they listened to Nader who kept saying, "there is not a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Gore" and furthermore let me go on for about an hour about how much Gore sucks. (edit: and wherever Nader went and gave a speech, the local media was only too happy to snip out half a minute of him bashing Gore and give it airplay on all their local newscasts.)

Again, Nader was on the wrong side.

It would be different is a0 Nader had run a campaign bashing Bush, and b) Nader had run his campaign in such a way, as any sensible person who cared about this country who cared about progressive causes WOULD have, to make damned sure that his campaign did not help to put Bush in the White House.

And again, before somebody jumps in with the old stand-by "Nader had every right to ..." I always concede that.

Of course, Nader had every right to help Bush become President. But doing so is still EVIL, it is still STUPID, it is still WRONG. The fact that he had a right to do it, does not make it any less so.

I can't believe that we still have to have this argument about whether the earth is flat or the earth is round, and I have to keep explaining to people about the roundness of the earth.

[Dash87]

53. Al Gore and George Bush cost Ralph Nader the election in 2000.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Gore lost Florida because he didn't attract enough votes.

It was his job to convince the voters to vote for him. He failed.

[Jarla]

59. If the votes for Nader in FL cost Gore the election...

...then shouldn't we be blaming those 97,000 people who voted for Nader despite the fact that it was a very tight race between Gore and Bush in FL?

Nader didn't force those people to vote for him. They weren't mindless automatons. For whatever reason, they chose to vote for Nader instead of Gore.

[GeorgeGist]

63. Those who blame Nader ...

are conceding that Bush won.

[byeya]

68. That's exactly the point reasonable people are trying to make: Gore won Florida and the Supreme

Court stole it from him.

[creeksneakers2]

65. Same finger pointing

Without an ounce of evaluation about whether the people who voted for Nader instead of Gore did the right thing. Finger pointing is all the Nader voters have.

I've yet to see one Nader voter say that the outcome of their choice was good. Is there some reason it was good that Bush won? No matter what else happened, its true that if Nader voters would have helped the left in the real race we would have won.

Yet, these same people do not have an ounce of regret about the outcome. In fact, in between elections here they continue to advocate sitting out elections. They'll happily help elect a Republican again.

Outcomes effect lives. The Nader voters, who love to promote themselves as uniquely virtuous, really don't care about the people they claim to be so supportive of. If they did care, they'd care what actually happened to them, and prefer for them to have a little more instead of a lot less. Instead, the Nader voters make it about themselves, with their heroic self images. They often say things like, "If they want my vote, they'll have to do what I want." Its never about sharing to get to what we want, or as much of it as possible.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

71. I call *BS* on this whole thread.

Fact: Gore won the election by any reasonable standard (e.g. counting the overvotes in all Florida counties). A media consortium studying the ballots in Florida documented this but spun the conclusion, in part because it was published after 9/11.

Fact: The Florida election was stolen by Katherine Harris and her lieutenant, at the direction of Jeb Bush. The mechanism for the theft was removing tens of thousands of innocent black Florida voters from the rolls shortly before the election under the pretext of "felon scrubbing." Greg Palast documents in exhaustive detail how this conspiracy was carried out.

Fact: Americans remain largely ignorant about the felon scrubbing scandal because Palast was never able to publish in the US (except at Salon when it's readership was still very small). In disgust he left the US and reported the story in the UK for the Guardian. This is why Europeans know more about what really happened than Americans concerning the 2000 US election.

[Rex]

72. Always be suspicious of people that give our democracy lip service.

Seems some only care about it when it is convenient to them. Otherwise they hate democracy. I suspect many of them are not even Ds. Just wolves in Dem clothing.

[randome]

75. I voted for Gore but his pandering for votes at the expense of Elian Gonzalez turned me off.

Perhaps the same effect was felt by others.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]