General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ralph Nader: 'Cowering' Democrats face defeat [View all]NYC Liberal
(20,148 posts)Yes, we all know anyone who wants to run can run. That doesn't mean that if you have an agenda in mind you should consider the effects of your candidacy and actually consider a strategy. Nader claimed there was no difference between Bush and Gore. That was as demonstrably false then as it is now. Many people knew full well it was bullshit.
Gore "lost" Florida by 500 votes. If a fraction, a tiny fraction, of Nader voters had instead voted for Gore, he would have won easily. If Nader hadn't run, some would have stayed home for sure, and some would have voted for Bush. But enough people would have compromised and voted for Gore as a "second-best" alternative to Nader.
Does that mean Nader had no right to run. No. But when you remember things like "GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads", you realize who was helping who. It had nothing to do with principles and everything to do with ego. Thus the Democrats could take any position and do anything, and there would still be a Ralph Nader.
People will always be suckered in by candidates like Nader who they can use as an outlet for their anger or frustration without considering the strategical, long-term implications. Consider this man from 2000:
"I understand the ramifications if Bush gets in," Manning said. "It's a matter of conscience."
http://amarillo.com/stories/102800/usn_gopairs.shtml