Why is this man President?

[FuriousMNDem]

because this man


took votes from this man.


SHAME ON HIM.

[fryguy]

1. well he did get the majority of votes

5 - 4

[Kadie]

2. Question.

Did Nader take votes from Al Gore and bushie or did people vote for Nader over Al Gore and bushie?

Don't people have a right to vote for the person they wish to vote for?

Also, the reason that bushie is president is because of a Supreme Court decision, and a ton of other factors leading up to that moment.

[Padraig18]

3. What about the votes that Buchannan took away from *?

Like a coin, there are 2 sides to your argument. Buchannan cost * NM, e.g. . Intellectual honesty demands that ALL facets of the 2000 coup d'etat be examined, and not simply the ones that one would prefer to examine.

Donna Brazille ran one of the crappiest campaigns in modern memory. FL caused huge numbers of likely Democratic voters to be purged from the rools. Al Gore quit campaigning in OH, when he likely would have won it, had he continued to campaign there, etc. .

[beyurslf]

9. Ok Buc. cost Bush NM and Nader cost Gore FL.

Let's swap and see who is President.

[Cuban_Liberal]

11. That misses the point.

Nader didn't cause Gore to lose--- Gore did. No one 'takes' a candidate's votes; the candidate fails to earn them, my friend.

The anti-Nader crowd needs to learn another song...

[Maat]

4. Because the Republican Party had made great efforts to...

have people in the right places -- in the Supreme Court, in Florida. Because the conspire and plot and hate better than we do. We have arguments about this in law class. Think about it, there are 250M people in the United States. Some have great education. Some have great experience. Some have both. I swear B**h bought his degree -- the man certainly doesn't act like he learned anything in school or on the job. And people are telling me he's the best qualified out of 250M people? His parents used their money and influence and control to get him the job. True, the Clintons have a lot of power in the Democratic party -- but they got that through respect -- and both have doctorates in the subject that is pertinent to working with the legislature and the judiciary. And they have a lot of experience working with a diverse group of specialists in government and world matters. What pertinent experience did George W. Bush have?

[AntiCoup2K4]

5. Rather than blaming everything on Nader

Maybe you should realize that THIS party has been hijacked by Republicans.

Geezus, how do you ignore the fact that NeoCON shitbags like Will Marshall, a card carrying PNAC'er, and Rand Beers who replaced the convicted felon Ollie North in the Reagan administration, are writing John Kerry's foreign policy. That Marshall and Al From wrote in article in 1995 calling the Gingrich theft of congress a LIBERATION (google it, I'm fucking serious!!)

The biggest threat to democracy in this country isn't even Bush & the PNAC'ers themselves, because everyone here KNOWS they are vile and expects them to act as such. The far greater threat is the collective of FUCKING TRAITORS who have far too many of you fooled into thinking they're the "good guys".

[BlueJazz]

6. He's President because half the population of the USA is...

...dumb as a box of rocks.

[HFishbine]

7. Actually

This man


took 11% of the Democratic vote from this man


while this man only took 2% of the Democratic vote

[AntiCoup2K4]

8. And let's not forget that about 50% of those eligible to vote....

...didn't vote for any of the above.

10. You're not going to win this election

by having sour grapes about the last selection.

You have to positively convince the people you are so afraid are going to vote for Nader, not scare them into voting for your candidate.

I voted for Nader in 1996. Am I going to vote for him now? No, unless, it looks like my state is going solidly Dem, which it probably will. Then I might.

[VOX]

12. Nader isn't *the* cause for 2000 results; he is one of *many* causes...

True, Gore didn't run the best campaign possible -- although he did receive more votes.

A botched bit of Florida strategy was calling for only a selective recount, instead of a statewide recount -- hindsight being 20/20.

Relatively few swing voters truly knew just how toxic, divisive and right wing * would be as president -- his Texas governorship was, for all appearances, bi-partisan, and he ran as a "uniter, not a divider."

I suspect that many of the Nader 2000 voters now really know that there is a difference between Republican and Democratic candidates.

As for Florida, I tend to chew the slipper more over what happened in New Hampshire:
http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/nader.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

Nader's 22,188 votes in New Hampshire far outstripped the 7,211 votes separating state winner Bush from Gore.

Bush 273,559
Gore 266,348
Nader 22,198

New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes went to Bush, who with Florida, got 271 electoral votes.

If Bush didn't take New Hampshire with the help of Nader, and if its 4 electoral votes then went to Gore, Gore would have won the election with 270 electoral votes.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

13. Well you know, all "5" of them voted for Bush so you really....

can't complain.

(satire)