I cannot believe we are still arguing about Nader

[hfojvt]

Maybe it is just a function of Newton's second law of arguments.

For every argument, there is an equal but opposite counter-argument. (Equal at least in the eyes of the person making the argument).

However, some spurious arguments should be put to rest. In order to avoid repeating myself for people who have not heard the refutation of these arguments. Here are some of the more popular arguments of Nader defenders.

1. Florida was stolen.

So what? New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon, and New Mexico were not stolen.

Gore lost New Hampshire by 7,211 votes or 1.27% and Nader took 3.91%. Was New Hampshire gonna be stolen anyway (as the argument goes about Florida). Change New Hampshire into the Gore column and Bush has 267 electoral votes to 270 for Gore and disaster is averted.

Gore won Iowa by 4,144 votes or .31% where Nader took 29,374
Gore won Wisconsin by 5,708 votes or .22% where Nader took 94,070
Gore won Minnesota by 58,607 votes or 2.4% where Nader took 126,696
Gore won New Mexico by 366 votes or .06% where Nader took 21,251
Gore won Oregon by 6,765 votes or .44% where Nader took 77,357
Gore lost Tennessee by 80,229 votes where Nader took 19,781 and was not really a factor, but Gore might have campaigned there or run more ads there if he was not worried about losing Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, Minnesota, New Hampshire or New Mexico.

Gore lost Nevada by 21,597 where Nader took 15,008. Not a difference maker, but without Nader, the Bush campaign might have worried more and devoted more resources to winning Nevada.

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

Take away Nader (please) and Gore wins New Hampshire and Bush is kept out of the White House.

2. Al Gore ran a bad campaign, so it is not Nader's fault.

Well, his campaign was good enough to win narrow victories in Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, and New Mexico. Meanwhile, here's Nader trying to win votes in Wisconsin a few days before the election http://articles.cnn.com/2000-11-01/politics/nader.wisconsin_1_nader-support-nader-vote-defiant-nader?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Here's Alterman claiming Nader was campaigning aggressively in Oregon and Wisconsin "On October 26, 2000, Eric Alterman wrote in The Nation, "Nader has been campaigning aggressively in Florida, Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. If Gore loses even a few of those states, then Hello, President Bush. And if Bush does win, then Goodbye to so much of what Nader and his followers profess to cherish." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000

Here's his running mate speaking in New Mexico http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/WinonaLaDuke/082800.html
"Winona: I will say that my gut feeling, and I'm afraid I've lost track of what I told you or what I told someone else tonight. So, if I repeat myself, forgive me. I believe that voting for Al Gore is a waste of your vote. I believe it is a waste of your vote because if you go to the polls and you vote for Al Gore because he is the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil. And you will still end up with evil. We deserve better than that. "

Really? If another 367 people had decided not to vote for Gore, then Bush would have carried New Mexico.

Point is that if another 17,000 or more fools had joined the other 220,000 fools in those states, like Nader wanted them to, and Florida would not have made any difference. Nader did not help to elect Bush in those states, but he sure tried his darndest.

I used my own meager powers (I wrote a few LTTEs and did GOTV on election day) to elect Gore and keep Bush from the White House. Nader, on the other hand, used his considerable powers, energy and influence to put Bush in the White House. Gore ran the best campaign he could. He did much better than McGovern, Carter II, Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry. Take away Nader sniping on his left flank and he could have run the same campaign and won handily.


3. Nader had a right to run.

A moot point beyond argument. I say that his run helped to elect George W, Bush. He had a perfect right to help elect George W. Bush, but I certainly do not appreciate him for doing so.


4. People had a right to vote for Nader

Again, a moot point. Nobody is saying that they didn't. But doing so, in some states helped to elect Bush. Why would anybody who believes, as I do, in many of the things Nader believes in want to help elect Bush?


5. Gore had to earn the Nader voters votes, and didn't.

That one puzzles me. Gore was the only viable alternative to Bush. One of those two was going to win the electoral votes of your state no matter how you, or 1,000 of your closest friends voted. Now had I lived in Kansas, I could have joined the 36,000 Nader voters with no consequence. Or in Utah, I could have joined the, again 36,000 Nader voters. Or in Illinois (where Nader got 100,000 votes and Gore won by 500,000), twice as many people could have voted for Nader without changing the national results. But in too many states, Nader was a difference maker. Studying the platform and policies of George W. Bush should have been enough for Gore to earn a vote in states where a vote mattered. That's how I wrote to persuade Iowans to vote for Gore - by telling them how much Bush sucked.

[Skinner]

1. We're still arguing about Nader...

...because some DUers haven't figured out that spoiling elections tends to spoil elections.

[G_j]

6. and some haven't figured out that stealing elections is a crime? nt

[emulatorloo]

7. + a zillion

Otoh, some DU'ers seem to crave a spoiler, because maybe Republican Rule will hasten the inevitable US socialist revolution. I used to sorta think that too after Reagan got his second term.

[TheWraith]

8. There is no better way to say that. Thank you. nt

[LanternWaste]

9. Voting, too.

"tends to spoil elections..."

Voting, too.

[FSogol]

38. +1 n/t

[RiffRandell]

41. And screw up the country for at least a decade.

But hey if one thinks they're "cool" for voting for Nader---they most likely have bigger personal issues than putting Bush in the WH.

[Snotcicles]

82. And just think if Clinton had not stolen it in 1992 from Nader

We wouldn't have N.A.F.T.A the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other real jewels that screwed over the working class. BIG TIME!

[SunsetDreams]

102. Clinton stole the election from Nader in 1992?

Can't say as I've ever heard that one. Do you have evidence of that claim?

[hifiguy]

2. Mention any other third party candidate

around here and you get your hand smacked, but mention this disruptive asshole (Nader) that was responsible for giving this wobegon land its Worst President Ever and a surprising number of DUers rise to his defense. I doesn't getsk it, as Popeye might put it.

Nader has never run for anything as a Democrat, and it wouldn't trouble me a bit if pro-Nader threads were immediately locked and the posters TS'd.

[JTFrog]

4. +1 n/t

[SidDithers]

5. Abso-fucking-lutely...

Nader is not and never has been a Democrat. Promoting third-party spoiler candidates is a TOS violation.



Sid

[DonCoquixote]

20. Tell that to kendrick meek

When Charlie Crist spoiled his vote...and DU supported it.

Of course, now that Charlie is running as a democrat, he will get support, and because we need to get Rick Scott out, I will vote for Charlie, but that does nto mean i have any illusions about what happens from former GOP scum infect the Democrats as "moderates."

[JonLP24]

18. I can't speak for everyone that does

I don't particularly care for him but I find it difficult to get mad at someone exercising his legal right to run for President and received votes for that decision. I believe the top third party person generally received more votes in Presidential elections before 2000. Besides, most of my defenses are focuses on the dirty tricks at play which I don't think is legal, which Nader's decision is.

[liberal N proud]

3. I can't believe this guy is still running after all these years

When was the first time Nader ran for President?



The answer is 1992

Ralph Nader, possibly the most famous perennial presidential candidate in recent U.S. history, is a consumer rights advocate, who ran for the presidency four consecutive times and was a write-in candidate in the 1992 New Hampshire primary. Nader ran twice as the nominee of the U.S. Green Party (in 1996 and 2000). In 2004 and 2008, he ran as an independent. Nader's 2.7% in the 2000 election has led to controversy as to whether he spoiled the election for Al Gore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_candidate




He is only in it to spoil it.

[Raine1967]

10. MAybe I've missed the news, but

I have seen no source (or link here on DU today) saying that he is running.

Nader bores me. That isn't meant to be dismissive of you LnP -- but lack of any proof that he is running, why is this man such a source of discussion on DU today?

[liberal N proud]

11. This guy only shows up at election time

He will stick his nose in there somewhere.

[grantcart]

12. I can't believe that there are people who still feel that he is relevent enough to bring up . .

so that we have to address him again and again.

He possesses an ego centric mania that trandscends whatever else he does. Social movments ultimately require solidarity and cooperation. Ghandi always looked for strategic openings and timing in order to coalesce the largest number of people possible. He did not, for example push independence against UK during WWII when he could have achieved it in the short term.

Nader is unable to organize and communicate as a part of a team, the proof is that for the last 3 decades Nader only has a bunch of press clippings to show for his effort.

His role in the 2000 election proved this in agonizing detail. He gets widespread contributions and support by promising to avoid strategic swing states. Then he spent the end of the campaign in swing states.

[eridani]

84. Not true. He successfully agitated for a lot of consumer protection laws

This did not, as you pointed out, reflect an ability to work with people. He started organizations like Public Citizen and then left them for others to run. But starting them is still a good thing on balance. Not exactly the skill set for an effective candidate, though.

[grantcart]

91. Name one important law that he has gotten passed in the last 10 years.

[eridani]

94. None, but this is supposed to negate his prior achievements?

The lone crusader thing works much better for outside advocates than for actual candidates, obviously. He shoulc have stuck to that modus operandi.

[grantcart]

95. a long time ago he was relevent, he no longer is. Quite a shame too, really.

He could have made a considerable contribution over the last twenty years if he had the ability to establish solidarity with various factions and others who don't exactly agree with him on every little thing. The first and last law of progressive mobilization is that nothing is accomplished without solidarity and developing common cause. Individual prima donas in the end accomplish little. Whatever technical expertise Nader brings is undermined by his strategic incompetence.

[mmonk]

13. It's an election year. Expect it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. I can.. there were lessons learned

for the republicans.

Voter suppression works, and the Dems will go SQUIRREL and ignore the forest for the trees.

[Rex]

99. That is it right there! While the narrow-minded blame Nader

like that fools any rational thinking person! Such an insult to the intelligence. Such a republican trait imo. Those that like to rewrite history are doomed to repeat it and all the failure that goes with it. So, with what you said the idiot Repukes could steal ANOTHER election (their 3rd national one) and the Dems will whitewash anything they are told to! UGH!

Have we learned NOTHING from 2000 and 2004? No, guess not.

[noiretextatique]

106. people need to be paying attention to all the voter suppression laws

that's how they are planning to steal the next election. i think it is difficult for many people to accept the fact that we had a judicial coup in this county, and the "opposition" did nothing about it. thanks, democrats, for not raising a peep "for the good of the country." and: it wasn't good for the country.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. The votes of the left were available in Florida. Gore failed to attract them.

Blaming it on Nader is like Chevy blaming Chrysler buyers because Ford outsells Chevy.

It's rather pathetic to blame Nader for Gore's failure.

[DonCoquixote]

21. Failed to attract?

Or rather the Florida greens let their ego trip get in the way. I say this as one who has down here, hearing the GOP high five each other on Talk radio, bragging about how they inflitrated the Greens and gave them money.

The Greens know they could have saved the day, and they did not, and THEY let in Bush. I was down here, I saw them get played, and I am seeing them still get played because the GOP knows they are to proud to admit they were WRONG.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. So, if Gore wanted/needed the Green vote why didn't he try for it?

Instead, he played "smart" politics and went after the "moderates". How'd that work out?

[DonCoquixote]

35. The Green vote

would not have been satisfied with anything less than a complee rejection of everyone not them. I still hear them talk about a post apolocolysse as if it is the glorious return of Gaia. He did not try for it because he knew he needed the moderates. The only saving grace now is that people finally see that GOP "moderation" is a sham.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Would the Democrats have been satisfied with anything less than a complete rejection of everyone not

them?

Oh, wait, you've already answered that question.

BTW the "moderates" (R's and D's) he tried for rejected him too.

[DonCoquixote]

37. Sadly yes

We have been satisfied with everything, from Centre right to dark Green, in either case, ince we cannot wiork together, we do not get that coveted 51% of people we need to win.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Maybe it's time we stop being satisfied with the "not as bad" of American politics.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[DonCoquixote]

44. Maybe, although

If you go that route, you better be satsifed with the "we never win" side, especially as right now, therer are not enough people to support a Dennis K. If you do, you better get used to the right wing knowing that the greens are useful allies, which is why they send money to them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. I've been living with that knowledge for a long time.

I've voted in 22 federal elections. In none of them did my vote change the outcome. So, with that knowledge, I might as well vote for the candidates that most parallel my views. N'est-ce pas?

[DonCoquixote]

46. Because

If you have a chance to make a situation better than worse, why not lean toward better, or do you think Gore would have been as bad as Bush?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Delete

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. As I said, it makes no difference as far as my vote.

As far as I'm concerned, as a life long Democrat, the party has no room to whine when they lose the votes of the left because they insist on moving right to accommodate the moderates. Maybe, though I doubt it, the party bosses will realize that playing to the right will cost them the left and elections.

Let the centrists hold their noses for a change.

[BzaDem]

56. Why would the party bosses care about the left?

When a group on the left makes it clear that they take irrational actions in the voting booth, that just moves the median relevant voter to the right. After all, Kerry moved to the right and supported the war. Yet Nader lost 90% of his voters from 2000.

Ultimately, life worked out fine for Kerry and Gore. However, it probably did not quite work out so well for the voters that enabled Bush's inauguration. (That is precisely why Nader's vote share collapsed. A child won't touch a hot stove twice. They learn that actions have consequences.) And it certainly did not work out so well for those who would be alive today, had Nader voters had their "come to reality" moment in 2000 rather than 2004. Many largely had nothing to do with Bush enablers, yet they lost their lives because a bunch of people on the left didn't understand the concept of a zero sum system.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. The Bush "enablers" are the Democratic politicians who vote with the Republicans.

Such as Kerry and Hillary. Or, go along with them, such as Obama.

[BzaDem]

61. So people who vote for a policy that Bush supports are Bush enablers. But people who enable the

inauguration of Bush (without which those policies wouldn't even reach a vote) are not Bush enablers.

Thank you for so articulately highlighting the logical absurdity of the third party worldview, and more generally, the worldview of those who think that candidates rather than voters are responsible for election outcomes.

[DonCoquixote]

74. As a Florida person

I can tell you that a few votes DO amke a difference, and even if you could be sure that not one more kid in the US would be helped, you know that a war with iran IS on the election block.

[Nye Bevan]

30. Except that Ford outselling Chevy does not result in a dangerous moron being elected President.

I would buy a Lada if it would prevent someone like Bush being inaugurated.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Some people won't settle for the "lesser of two evils".

It's the candidate's responsibility to earn votes. If he fails to do that, he loses.

[FrenchieCat]

62. You mean....we lose......

cause as you said, the candidates go on to do just fine....

[One of the 99]

53. You just proved the OP's point nt

[BzaDem]

55. It isn't Gore's responsibility to "attract" them. That premise is completely upside down.

Gore was going to be fine, win or lose. In fact, he has probably made many times more out of office than he would have made in office.

An election isn't decided by the candidates. It is decided by the voters. Voters are the one who decide who the President is, and voters are responsible and accountable for the outcome. This is more than obvious; it is axiomatic.

Blaming Gore for losing the election is like blaming a homeowner for his house being burglarized.

Who do you think was harmed more by Gore not being inaugurated on January 20th? Gore? Or the average Nader voter? (For that matter, who do you think was harmed more: Gore, or the hundreds of thousands of people who would not have died had one percent of Nader voters voted for Gore?)

It is not Gore's responsibility to explain to Nader voters what should be quite obvious in 5th grade civics.

Perhaps that is why you always try to change the subject, to emphasizing how one vote never changes anything. It is quite telling that you won't come out and admit the direct and clear implication of your logic. You never quite come out and say what you would do if your vote could single-handedly elect Gore or elect Bush (through any sort of non-Gore vote). Instead, you try to hide behind the collective action problem.

If someone wants to take an action that will help Bush get elected, that is their legal right. But they do not have the right to make a false statement, and claim that helping Bush is not what they are doing, without someone pointing out the falsity of the statement.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. Got it. So, Gore didn't need to campaign at all.

He could have just sat at home and let the voters decide. I guess the same goes for the candidates in all elections.

If it's merely up to the voters (what about the Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush?) then why bother with campaigns, or parties, or conventions. Hell, why bother with candidates?

It isn't that Gore failed to attract the Left wing, he didn't even try, he failed to attract the "moderates" that he tried to attract.

Get back to me about the "What would I do if my one vote will decide an election..." when it will and I'll inform you of decision.

If someone wants to take an action that will help Bush get elected, that is their legal right. But they do not have the right to make a false statement, and claim that helping Bush is not what they are doing, without someone pointing out the falsity of the statement.

Right. And, Gore, by failing to get enough votes helped Bush to get elected. Blaming his failure on the left instead of Gore. and the Democrats and Independents that voted for Bush, is disingenuous at best.

BTW, I held my nose and voted for Gore.

[JonLP24]

16. This assumes that they would have voted for Gore

when they may would vote for the person that would've ran in Nader's place.

It also ignores the number of Democrats that voted for Bush.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. The Democrats that voted for Bush is the one's that Gore went after.

Whereas, he ignored the left and left them to Nader.

He failed to attract the right, and failed to attract the left.

How shocking.

[BzaDem]

57. But again, isn't that equally their problem? If a voter makes a decision to enable the inauguration

of Bush, who cares precisely what form that decision takes?

No one is saying that Bush enablers don't have the right to enable Bush.

[Fumesucker]

19. Gore couldn't even win his home state..

And he ran away from Clinton who left office with the highest end-of-office approval rating since WWII, the economy was blazing like a small sun, we were more or less at peace..

Not to mention picking Holy Joe Droopy Dawg as his running mate, that brilliant move alone cost him at least a couple of close states. Gore's lack of acuity in picking a running mate has been confirmed beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt by events that followed.

[BzaDem]

58. If the next Democratic candidate came from Idaho (but was as liberal as Kucinich), would you be

saying the same thing?

I really doubt it.

Gore isn't responsible for the election results (beyond his single vote). Voters are the one that pick the candidates; voters are responsible for the choices they make.

[Fumesucker]

64. And politicians of course bear no responsibility at all for the choices they make..

Funny how Nader catches *all* the blame for his decisions 2008 and yet Gore gets none for arguably worse decisions.

[MadHound]

22. We're still arguing about Nader because he is convenient scapegoat

He can be used to blind people to Democratic shortcomings. He can be used as the "daily hate", in order to keep party members loyal. He can be used in order to demonize those pesky liberals. He can be used to obscure the fact that our election system is badly broken, and nothing is being done about it.

That is why we still argue about Nader.

The fact of the matter is that Nader's run in '00 did not swing the election in Bush's favor. In fact, according to Al From, then head of the DLC, Nader's place in the race acutally helped Gore. "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race. "
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919

Furthermore, not only did Gore run a bad campaign, he ran an even worse recount. Journalist Greg Palast approached the Gore campaign early on in the recount with reams of solid evidence that fifty thousand voters(and the number was rising) had been deprived of their vote by Katherine Harrison working in concert with the Bush campaign. Now think of this, here you are in a tight recount race, and you are handed the means with which to banish your opponent to the political wilderness forever. What would you do? I imagine most of us would go public ASAP. Gore didn't, instead, he remained mum, and ultimately 100,000 plus voters were disenfranchised with hardly a peep, and nothing approaching justice.

Think about this now, Gore was handed not only the election on a silver platter, but the means with which he could banish the Bush family to the political wilderness forever. But what does he do? Nothing, not a damn thing.

Oh, and let's not forget that it was the Supreme Court who ultimately decided this mess.

But nooo, apparently some people can't handle the fact that the Dems screwed up, that they didn't have the backbone to fight back, that perhaps they were, to one degree or another, complicit with the Bush debacle. No no nonono, can't be.

So instead they find a scapegoat in Nader, and continue to keep on bashing him twelve years later.

Sad, really, truly sad.

[woo me with science]

24. This is the correct answer. nt

[One of the 99]

52. That's just not true

Think about this now, Gore was handed not only the election on a silver platter

Gore was down 19% points to Bush at the start of 2000, that is not being handed the election on a silver platter.

[MadHound]

65. Yes, that is true

The fact of the matter is that Greg Palast approached the Gore campaign early in the recount process of Florida with solid evidence of the Katherine Harris votescam scandal. By breaking this, Gore would have easily won the recount, the election, and banished the Bush's to the political wilderness forever. But instead, Gore sat on the information.

I'm not talking about how Gore v. Bush was going at the start of 2000, I'm talking about the Gore campaign's failure to expose massive voter disenfranchisement in Florida.

[One of the 99]

66. And how would that have changed the results

If Palast had told Gore before the election, that would have been one thing. After the election, there would have been no legal remedy.

[MadHound]

68. He told Gore during the recount, when it certainly could have made a difference.

Amazing to see how desperately people want to cling to that old "Nader cost Gore" meme, when it has been debunked countless times over the past eleven years.

What, I guess you don't believe Al From either?

[One of the 99]

72. Again, not true

There would have been no legal remedy to do something about it after the election had been held. That is just a fantasy.

[MadHound]

86. No legal remedy?

You really don't know the law very well at all, do you.

[One of the 99]

87. Really???

Then quote what law would have allowed those people to vote after election day.

[hfojvt]

54. ah, the DLC

a source I can surely trust. Al From mentions a poll, or "polling data" but does not cite a source.

And oh golly gee, the Gore team screwed up the recount. If only he had gone public, something the journalist Palast was apparently unable to do?

None of that inside baseball gets around the fact that without Nader out there campaigning for Bush, the recount would have been a moot point.

[MadHound]

67. What, you think that the DLC would lie about this?

Gore was their darling DLC boy, and frankly it would have been to their advantage to blame it all on Nader.

And if Gore had done his Constitutional duty, you know, upholding the rule of law and all that, yes, he would have won in Florida.

But you want to continue to use Nader as some sort of whipping boy, unable to face up to the truth that Nader is simply not the bogey man you want to believe.

[mdmc]

23. ..

[TheKentuckian]

25. You made a post that keeps the debate going but that isn't your point, is it?

Your point is why hasn't everyone joined you in your conclusions.

I voted and worked for Gore but not without reservations and have answered you and your's enough but for now it is enough to say that everyone doesn't agree with how you evaluate who gets your vote and why and may well never come to you line of thinking and some who once agreed (like me) are far less sure with the passage of time that the lesser of two evils logic works over any extended period.

Either way we end up a corporatisim or worse and the poor get poorer.

[ZombieHorde]

26. If one person determines an election, then do we really have a democracy? nt

[Honeycombe8]

27. Yes. nt

[Honeycombe8]

28. I second that emotion. Nader = Egotistical has-been still trying to be viable. nt

[Nye Bevan]

29. Nader made it possible for Bush to steal the election.

A few days before the election, Nader could have appeared with Gore, acknowledged that they had differences, but urged his supporters to vote for Gore to prevent Bush from winning. (My guess is that in exchange for that Gore would have agreed to some concession to Nader on one of his issues). If he had done that, Florida would have not been close enough to steal. No Bush, no Iraq War, probably no 9/11 attacks.

Of course, there are many reasons that Bush was inaugurated in 2000 instead of Gore. But Nader had the power to stop that from happening.

[Fumesucker]

31. Here's what made it possible for Bush to steal the election..

[Behind the Aegis]

49. That's as ignorant and short-sighted as saying it was all Nader's fault.

[Fumesucker]

63. Did you note where the picture was taken?

The 2008 Republican National Convention.

The 2000 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee stumped for the Republican candidates in 2008.

I suppose it would have been possible for Gore to pick a worse running mate, Cheney was already taken.

[Behind the Aegis]

69. Did you notice 8 years elpased?

[Fumesucker]

75. Eight years in which Republicans wrecked the nation?

Yes, as a matter of fact I did notice that..

Evidently Senator Lieberman didn't.

[Behind the Aegis]

76. Eight years in which the man changed.

I am guessing you didn't notice that either.

[Fumesucker]

77. No he didn't change, he just revealed who he really was in the first place..

Lieberman was an awful VP choice, Al Gore managed to make Joe look charismatic.

There's a Joke Al used to tell about himself, "How can you pick Al Gore out from a room full of Secret Service agents? He's the stiff one."

[Behind the Aegis]

78. In your "expert" opinion, and yet, he was not the reason for the lost election.

It is stupid and short-sighted to play like it is.

[Fumesucker]

79. Go tell all those who say it's Nader's fault..

They are legion on DU..

So far you are the only one disagreeing with me, one thing I've learned on DU is if you say something egregiously stupid then you're going to get piled on.

Actually my point is more about Democrats, Nader and DU than it is Lieberman but Joe was a good way to present it.

Joe's influence on the Y2K election is not an issue here because he is perceived as being to Obama's right, Nader on the other hand is hated because he is perceived as being to Obama's left.

It's remarkably revealing of the dynamic both here and in the party.

[Behind the Aegis]

81. You mean like I did in post #49?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=394743

So far you are the only one disagreeing with me, one thing I've learned on DU is if you say something egregiously stupid then you're going to get piled on.

Well, that surely proves you're correct.

Actually my point is more about Democrats, Nader and DU than it is Lieberman but Joe was a good way to present it.

Joe's influence on the Y2K election is not an issue here because he is perceived as being to Obama's right, Nader on the other hand is hated because he is perceived as being to Obama's left.

It's remarkably revealing of the dynamic both here and in the party.

So, your ignorant remark was simply an attack on DU and democrats? Why didn't you just say so!

[Fumesucker]

83. An observation, not an attack..

Any policy or person perceived as being to the left of Obama comes in for constant attack by a certain contingent here on DU, one of the characteristics of that contingent is that almost all of them evidently hate Nader and blame him solely for Gore's loss in Y2K.

The same reason that Ron Paul comes if for special hatred here too, he is perceived by some as being to the left of Obama in some few ways unlike the rest of the Republican field and that makes him worse than them to those people.

As I said, a really interesting dynamic.

[Behind the Aegis]

85. Ron Paul? Really?

OK.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. Nader is no longer a factor

Was he responsible for Kerry conceding while people were still voting in Ohio and there were reports of irregularities?

Did Nader prevent Obama from winning in 2008?

Has he done anything to build up a movement since 2000?

So why do some people keep bringing him up? It's not the LEFT that keeps bringing him up.

[sabrina 1]

42. It helps hide the fact that despite knowing that election was stolen, Democrats

did nothing about it. They not only did nothing about it, they were as vigilant about shutting down any discussion of it as Republicans were. Nader was the scapegoat who was used to distract from the crime that changed the course of history. But why did Democrats allow that to happen?

The real question most of us had then, and in 2004, was why Democrats were so willing to allow the criminals off the hook.

I don't really know why there are still a few people trying to use Nader as a distraction. We know what happened in 2000, too much has been written about it to pretend we do not. And few people who pay any attention whatsoever to politics, view Nader as anything but a footnote to that election.

Gore won that election despite the hundreds of thousands of Democrats who voted for Bush and despite the cheating, the corruption and the crimes committed to steal it from him. And then when all else failed, the felons on the SC intervened unconstitutionally and handed it to Bush.

Nader did nothing illegal and it's incomprehensible to me that anyone would ascribe more blame to someone who broke no laws, than to the actualy law-breakers. It never made sense and it never will. What it does do is show how if Democrats cannot unite around holding the criminals who stole that election responsible, why we are in the mess we are in.

[BzaDem]

59. Can you point to one person on this board who claimed that Nader did something illegal, in running

for office?

If you have to resort to arguing against points that no one has ever claimed, shouldn't that cause you to rethink your position in this argument, and your thought process for getting there?

People blame Nader (and his voters) because if they decided to take a different action, hundreds of thousands of more people would be alive today. None of the "stolen" subject-changing (as if anyone here disputes the election was stolen) changes that fact.

[Rex]

98. Well that is just stupid imo.

But hey the world is full of people with different opinions, some far dumber then others.

[rudycantfail]

40. The Democratic Party establishment needs to get clued in

that traditional Democrats are increasingly independent thinking and acting, are not part of "the team" and should not be taken for granted. If you move to the right (or act like a doofus) you're going to leave people behind. The well paid consultants are supposed to do those calculations. The voter votes for who speaks to him.

[quaker bill]

43. Why argue?

Just concede that it only served his oversized ego to run and that likely more than 537 of his 97,000 FL votes would have gone to Gore had he not been on the ballot.

It is really simple. It was a massive waste of time and money. It did not move Dems to the left. It probably ended the notion of the Green Party ever being any sort of legitimate electoral threat. it gave us 4 years of Bush*.

All of this is obvious, there is no need to argue about it. I know some of the people who voted for him are still trying to rationalize it as a good thing, but the best they can come up with is "it was not our fault". Show me anything good on a national scale that has arisen out of any Nader run for President. I haven't seen it, and I have been paying attention for it.

The best I have seen so far is "Yes, it was a waste of time, but did no harm". I don't buy that.

[Iggo]

47. Not me.

[Behind the Aegis]

51. There were many things that cost that election.

Nader was just one piece of the puzzle, but for some, it is easier to find a single scapegoat and run with it; for some, it is Nader, others it is the Supreme Court, still others it was Clinton, for a few it was Lieberman, and finally, the rarest one to get blamed, is Al Gore. Gore's campaign was weak. He was semi-popular, but noone really knew anything about him because all the focus was on the Clintons. Hell, I often look back and think; he could have been on fire, literally, and I think many, especially the press, would have overlooked it, they would have been more interested in some oft-fabricated mess one of the Clintons was involved in. I also think there was a general thought, especially among democrats, that Bush would NEVER win and people got lazy. I hope we don't see something similar with this election.

[quaker bill]

80. You forgot the FL Dem party

which left outdated voting technology in place in their areas of strongest support, a technology that spoiled 50,000 to 100,000 dem ballots every election, and had done so consistently for decades. They were in power for decades and could have fixed it.

Second the party could not have found its voters with a flashlight and street map. I worked for Al Gore, and the Dem party process was simply a mess. If it were not for the Unions being able to find their dues paying members, it would never have been close. Still, even today, candidates depend on outside organizations like the Unions, who can find their people, to get the job done.

[Uncle Joe]

93. You forgot the corporate media, Al Gore wasn't popular at all with them precisely because

he did champion opening the Internet to the people.

The corporate media's owners and upper managment came to view the growing power and influence of the Internet as threatening their one way, top down, monopolistic business model of distributing, disseminating information and telling the American People what reality was/is.

The corporate media had great enmity for Gore because of this and Al's policies challenged some of their prime commercial buying clients ie; oil corpse, the corporate media saw a serious loss of power, money and infuence as a result of the Internet and loss of commerical revenues.

The corporate media's relentless slander and libel campaign against Gore for the better part of two years prior to the selection more than anything handed the Oval Office to Bush.

The corporate media played Zeus to Gore's Prometheus but instead of sending a buzzard to consume an eternally healing liver, their legion of pundit buzzards and "journalists" took continuous bites from Gore's credibility with the people by means of slander, slight and libel.

The corporate media's campaign; of both denying Gore rightful credit for his legislative work in being the prime political champion for opening the Internet to the people and working to damage his credibility denied the people critical information in making any wise judgment in evaluating Gore's character and the issues he promoted ie: global warming.

Had the corporate media as an institution not betrayed the American People's best interest and had some sense of journalistic integrity, Gore's popularity would have soared and his landslide win would've been too large for Bush to steal.

[Lil Missy]

70. Then why did you start a thread to argue about Nader?

[MineralMan]

71. One of the reasons we're still arguing about Nader

is that people keep posting arguments about Nader. If that stopped, the arguments would stop. Nader is completely irrelevant to 2012.

[WI_DEM]

88. And thanks for adding to the debate!!

[Bradical79]

89. Without a runnoff system, a popular third party liberal candidate can only acomplish one thing

And that one thing is getting the least acceptable candidate elected.

[JoePhilly]

90. Nader only pops his head out of the hole when the Dems have a good chance at winning thw WH.

He's like a presidential election year ground hog.

[Better Believe It]

92. You left out something. Gore won the 2000 Election. It was stolen and not by Nader.

[Rex]

97. Yeah he did. Funny ain't it

how some people seem to 'forget' that small tiny part and focus on the distraction object instead. It is like jingling some keys in front of a baby imo.

"Who is to blame for 2000? *jingle jingle* That's right, Nader is to blame...good baby!"

[Better Believe It]

100. That leaves Joe Leiberman, the Supreme Court and Bush off the spot. How convenient!

[Rex]

101. I JUST learned yesterday that Joe is a or was a big big FAN of Glenn Beck!!!

[noiretextatique]

105. and there's that little fact

that the nader-obsessed dismiss.

[Rex]

96. I wasn't sure if this was a pro-nader thread or a nader bashing thread.

So I thought I would waste 10 seconds of my life to find out. What a waste of time.

[bluestate10]

103. Anyone that supports a Nader run this time around is a damned fool.

There is just too much to lose if a republican somehow wins states that Nader's vote impacted. If progressives want to push Nader, I have a statement for them. Help Nader cause democrats and the nation the Presidency, I say fuck them. I won't contribute money to candidates they love ever again, I won't vote in general elections if their candidates win primaries. I won't lift a hand when the rightwing slime that they help get elected starts stripping away basic rights, ala Bush II. Some progressives want to go nuclear, I have more firepower in my arsenal that the great majority of them.

[noiretextatique]

104. the bush cabal in florida and SCOTUS deserve ALL the blame for bush

either you are for the democratic process or not. if you are for the process, then you have to accept that someone other than a democrat or a republican might run for president. if you don't like the process, you are not democratic.
i have no problem with the process, however, i do have a problem with disenfranchisement and treason.