Why is Nader the big topic now?

[LiberalElite]

Just curious.

[elleng]

1. because Democrats just can't get their/our act together, imo.

[Cal Carpenter]

2. Because scapegoating is easier than dealing with the actual problems the Dems have

[elleng]

22. Yes.

Thanks.

[840high]

75. Yep.

[leftstreet]

3. The beatings will continue until morale improves

Hillary is the inevitable nominee. The base doesn't want her.

There's no escape

[Cali_Democrat]

10. malcontents on DU don't speak for the base

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-doesnt-have-a-problem-with-liberals-not-hardly/

[leftstreet]

16. There's not much base left here

WhenHillary secures the nomination and every other DU thread contains the word SEXIST !!!1111, DU will turn into a ghost town

[bettyellen]

20. if we keep having our hosts post OPs exhorting women to "show their tits" DU will be a ghost town

or like that group of guys "going it alone".

[leftstreet]

24. Seriously?

A host did that?

OMG this place sometimes

[JI7]

67. true, the base of the Democratic Party is Minorities and they make up a very small number on DU

because they were disgusted by the attacks on Obama and others in the party by those who are always complaining about "social issues".

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. Since everyone's "curious", how the hell do you know what "the base" wants? Are you their....

new spokesperson? And how many of you are there? And have you somehow confused DU with "the base"?

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Because Republicans bankroll Nader and his acolytes so they can divide Dems.

[bettyellen]

21. bingo.

[betterdemsonly]

61. They bankrolled dlc dems to a much greater degree than Nader

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5192115

[DisgustipatedinCA]

89. That's an answer to the question posed?

His name is suddenly coming up in lots of threads on DU because Republicans? Why don't you flesh that out a little more. Your statement fails to address the question.

[PoliticAverse]

5. Ostensibly because he cost Gore the election which allowed Bush to appoint Roberts and Alito...

to the Supreme Court which allowed the Hobby Lobby decision.

[winter is coming]

13. The Supreme Court was already fucked up in 2000. That's how we got W. n/t

[reddread]

28. Thanks to Joseph Biden and nobody else

[G_j]

6. It started with the HL SCOTUS decision

apparently it's all his fault.

[SixString]

7. The turd way crowd needs a scapegoat. n/t

[KG]

8. because dems couldn't turn peace and prosperity into a landslide win in 2000.

[leftstreet]

11. +1

[joshcryer]

27. That's utter bullshit. The media completely trounced Gore.

http://www.howhegotthere.blogspot.com/

Invented the internet, liar, shitty clothing choices, aggressive toward Bush. C'mon! If the media was even remotely unbiased Gore would've won that election handily.

Hell, I bet people don't even remember here how the media actually changed the colors of the parties.

[leftstreet]

29. NAFTA trounced Gore. Labor sat out the election

But you probably know that

[joshcryer]

33. Labor sat out the election?

Can you back that up with one link? Just one.

This is more absurd stupid revisionism.

It's so tiresome.

[leftstreet]

34. You're too young to remember? Do you know what NAFTA is?

Good grief

[joshcryer]

37. You clearly forgot the "Labor 2000" project.

It was the largest move by the labor movement in history to expand into politics. Oh, and they got Hillary Clinton elected, too, with 20,000 union organizers working to GOTV on election day.

Please, you embarrass yourself.

[leftstreet]

39. So sorry. I must have a...tin ear n/t

[joshcryer]

41. "Labor sat out the election."

No, you just lied. Labor did in fact not sit out the election.

[leftstreet]

45. I'm not lying

You're talking about labor 'representatives' (cough)

I'm talking about working class voters - who sat out the election because Gore wouldn't speak against NAFTA

But you know all this

[joshcryer]

48. Except they voted overwhelmingly for Gore.

So you're still lying.

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_00.html

[leftstreet]

54. No labor representation there

Hmm

Are you making assumptions based on income? Race? Oh my.

[joshcryer]

60. What do you think "Union Household" means?

What would be your metric for "labor"?

[leftstreet]

63. What unions? There aren't any to measure

That % on your little demographic is APPALLING

But you know that

[joshcryer]

66. 59% is appalling?

[leftstreet]

68. It's a SAMPLE of PEEPS who VOTED

Sample of 13,225 voters as they left voting booths on Election Day, November 7, 2000.

Hello?

The subject was Labor SAT OUT (which means didn't vote, k?) the election

Your little chart is about people who VOTED

(And yes...any chart, of voters or nonvoters, that shows union households at 24% is appalling.)

[joshcryer]

72. Right, those are people who voted.

Where's your link to substantiate those who didn't vote?

When union households make up only 11% of the population and yet they make up 26% of the vote that means their participation rate is more than twice as much as the non-union population.

Labor 2000: Unprecedented Grassroots Power
Working men and women mobilized through their unions at an unprecedented level in the AFL-CIO’s most ambitious political program to date: Labor 2000. Union members registered more people to vote (2.3 million union households were added to voter rolls); educated more people on the candidates’ positions (they made 8 million personal phone calls to educate union members about the candidates and sent out 12 million pieces of mail – and this figure doesn’t include mail sent out by local unions); and mobilized a bigger Get-Out-The-Vote effort than ever before, through the efforts of 1,000 labor field coordinators.

http://www.local802afm.org/2001/01/labor-2000-unprecedented-grassroots-power/

Outright revisionism. I remember well the Labor 2000 program and it was a resounding success and labor did not "sit out" the election. They came out 2 to 1.

[reddread]

38. one significant aspect of the Clinton admins failure to appeal is going unmentioned

sanctions and bombings that perpetuated GHWB policies, mass murder of children.
seemingly discounted/forgotten now, but those things were very hard to swallow at the time.
now its business as usual.

[leftstreet]

42. Excellent point

...and the first breath of the modern antiwar movement

[elleng]

32. Something like that.

Gore just couldn't 'embrace' Clinton's various successes (about which we may disagree) because of lewinsky. He may have had substantive disagreements too, but he wouldn't take advantage of the positives, even Clinton's charisma, to use him in the campaign.

[Uncle Joe]

62. Because the corporate media portrayed "who would you rather have a beer with?" as being

the ultimate criteria in determining who should occupy the most powerful job in the land.

The corporate media downplayed serious issues while focusing on trivial, trite concerns.

I'm astounded that people can so easily overlook the corporate media's major propaganda role in coloring the peoples' attitudes in the election/selection of 2000.

[winter is coming]

9. Because some are afraid the left won't turn out for another Third Way candidate. n/t

[DJ13]

23. I think you got it right

Nader represents the anti corporate base to the third way, the Nader sucks threads are an attempt to rein in the malcontents to help Hillary.

[reddread]

30. well they seem to acknowledge an attempt to use Nader to sow division

only they seem to be the only ones using him for that.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

79. Nader represents the anti corporate base to the third way?

Bullfucking shit. Nader's a sellout.

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/06/27/ralph-nader-turns-rightest-on-cisco/

[Skittles]

12. because the more shit that happens because of the travesty of 2000

the more people are reminded of him

[BillZBubb]

70. Bingo!

Plus we see the same people who backed Nader's spoiler campaign in 2000 once again claiming if "Hillary wins the nomination I won't vote for her". It's the same Nader Nonsense that "bush and Gore are no different". Hillary would be far better than ANY republican, just like Gore would have been infinitely better than the disaster bush.

[Skittles]

90. YOU KNOW IT BILLZBUBB

yes INDEED

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

14. 1-3, 7-8.

Those comments pretty much cover it. When your candidate screws up, you need a convenient scapegoat.

Plus, looking ahead, it reminds us that the centrists will be looking to blame 'the lefties' if a centrist candidate runs in 2016 and screws the pooch again.

[Tarheel_Dem]

15. Why another Nader thread now? Just curious.

[onehandle]

17. Any SCOTUS vote since 2000 and every vote for the next 20-30+ years will bring up Nader. nt

[joshcryer]

18. The Naderites lost the first round.

So they're doubling down and rehashing.

They know we'll get tired of the repetition and they can feel as though they won.

[genwah]

25. SQUIRREL! I mean, it's not like there's an election in November or anything...GOTV...wait...SQUIRREL

[silvershadow]

85. No shit. Only on DU can we manage to turn what should be a banner year for Democrats,

an unexpected windfall, into such gloom. 16 can wait. Let's work on 14 right at this moment.

[genwah]

91. Thank you! I thought I was in Bizzarro World.

[villager]

26. The complete intellectual bankruptcy of the center/right is on display in the rehashing...

...of 15 year old anti-Nader talking points.

They have no interest in building a coalition with anyone to the left of them. They do have an interest in getting those people to "shut up and sit down" however, while offering no new ideas as the corporations take down our democracy, and our planet.

[socialist_n_TN]

31. Distraction......

It's a nice distraction for when anything bad happens. Count on it. Every SCOTUS ruling, every problem in other areas will be blamed on Nader for "losing" FL for Gore.

The capitalists continually feed us small, shiny objects to keep us distracted from the facts of the looming fascism they're promoting. That's fascism in the original Mussolini estimation. If we blame Nader, we won't blame the system that oppresses us all.

[joshcryer]

35. Uh, no, most of the posters are apolitical.

The ones who call out Nader are political, we actually know what happened, how things went down, and we won't allow it to happen again.

It's actually pretty funny. The people saying that pointing out Nader's undeniable divisiveness are calling us political junkies divisive for pointing out something that happened in the past that we shouldn't allow to happen in the future!

That is, we should be united against the Republicans as opposed to infighting amongst one another. Nader cost us a lot when he broke his promise and campaigned in swing states.

[G_j]

44. when you decide you don't want to repeat this, let us know..

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/06/se.02.html

Congressional Black Caucus Protests Electoral Vote Count

Aired January 6, 2001 - 2:00 p.m. ET

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: And if you're just joining us, we're going to go straight to the press conference we told you about with the Congressional Black Caucus with regard to the -- all right, we're working on getting audio for you in just a moment. And while we're doing that, I will recap just a bit.

REP. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (D), TEXAS: ... black caucus, and I'm going to ask Mr. Hastings to give his opening statement, and I'll return.

REP. ALCEE HASTINGS (D), FLORIDA: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Today was a very solemn day, and the remarks are that many of us were not permitted, regretted by us all. Had I been given an opportunity to go forward with an appropriate objection, I would have indicated that because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout by unlawful means, I felt the necessity -- as do my colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus, and other members of the House of Representatives -- to object to the kinds of errors against democracy, the holy grail of democracy, that were permitted in the state of Florida.

And we felt that they should not be tolerated, as they would not be tolerated in other countries. Indeed, we should not tolerate them in America.

I would have said to Vice President Gore that Harry Truman once said that what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. What we were doing here today is right. I hope all of our colleagues and the American people see it that way. And that is why we raised our objection. And it's a proud moment for the conscience of the House of Representatives, for those of us that are representing the entirety of the Congressional Black Caucus, in the presence of our chairlady, and the members here assembled, we stand proudly to say that we did what was right.

JOHNSON: Forty years ago, during the civil rights movement, I marched for justice with a firm belief that my son would not have to march, in order to utilize his voting rights. Much to my dismay, 40 years later, I find myself marching again, but this time for my grandchildren, so that they will not have to march in order to be afforded the same rights.

How long will we settle for injustice in America? How long will we have to fight to perfect the 15th Amendment? How long will we have to struggle for something that should be every American's birthright? On election day, 100 million Americans went to the polls to make their voices heard. Those voices want to be heard still. No hyper- technical manipulation of election laws should derail the intent of the voter.

We cannot sweep under the carpet the claims of first-time college voters who say they registered to vote, had voter registration cards in their hand, but when they were not allowed to vote at the polls, because their names were not on the roll, the lines were busy all over the country, where they tried to call to clarify their registration.

We cannot sweep this under the carpet, the cries of those who were incorrectly removed from the polling places in Florida by an inept Texas company hired by Mr. Bush's brother.

We cannot ignore believable stories of police intimidation, questionable activities by poll workers and simple ineptness by volunteers at the precincts. We cannot ignore what we saw with our own eyes on television: polls closing on voters in St. Louis, un- American voting lines in Pennsylvania and incredibly complex ballots in South Florida.

There is overwhelming evidence that George W. Bush did not win this election, either by national popular vote or the Florida popular vote. As members of Congress charged with defending the constitutional principles of this country, it is our duty to challenge this vote.
<snip>

REP. CARRIE MEEK (D), FLORIDA: We dare not have it repeated. We dare not have the Tilden and the Rutherford Hayes situation repeated again, because it disenfranchised our people at that time.

This will disenfranchise -- it already has -- our people. We don't want that continued. We will always come out. We will always fight. We don't care who is it there.

We are very disappointed that our senators did not stand up and support us today. We helped to elect those senators. They will hear from us again, because we feel very disappointed that they didn't say we want our African-Americans, and our disjointed people who were not able to vote, to have someone in the halls of Congress to say, yes, give them a chance to debate this issue, so that the world could see what is happening here.

We have had our votes nullified. That's why we're so sad. They were nullified by defective voting machines, nullified by discriminantly distributed and targeted machinery, election machinery, in our neighborhoods. The votes were nullified by a purge of voting lists, undertaken by direction from a campaign that retained the equivalent of electoral thugs.

I was there. I saw exactly what happened. I was chased by these thugs. I was called a communist by these thugs, a socialist by these thugs, many of them who were not even citizens of this country. That's what happened in this campaign in Miami-Dade, Florida.

So that we were illegally struck from the voting list by a process that classified thousands of our people as felons. We were nullified again by deals that were cut in cities -- cut by the winning campaign, with our leading authorities in our cities. We were nullified by ballots that were printed in such a way that reasonably thinking citizens could not know for whom they were voting. That's why we're here.

Everyone should have a right to know how they're voting, and for whom they're voting. We were nullified again, by a secretary of state, who has already been given a very big accomplishment by this administration. She authorized her authority to prevent valid votes from being counted. So, it nullified the thing for us.

All that is left for us now, as the Congressional Black Caucus and as citizens of this country, is to exercise our First Amendment rights, while we still have it, and before it is further undermined by a politically dominated Supreme Court.

We exercise that right today to protest against this ill-chosen nomination. We exercise our right to petition our government for our citizenry to receive a redress of grievances. So, I speak for the majority of Americans, particularly African-American Americans, who did not vote for the new president-elect, but who now must live under an administration that appears to award spoils to the victors, even when the electoral process has been so clearly corrupted.
thank you

----

We're going to bring in our congressional correspondent Chris Black once again.

Definitely not business as usual today, Chris.

CHRIS BLACK, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Not exactly. Things were going along as expected. The District of Columbia votes were recorded, and then Chaka Fattah, ironically a member of the black caucus himself but one of the two House tellers working on this Electoral College vote today, got to Florida. He announced the 25 Electoral College votes. Al Gore said, is there an objection? And there were a lot of them. A dozen members of the Congressional Black Caucus, one after the other, rose to their feet to object to the votes from Florida.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AL GORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutsch, arise?

REP. PETER DEUTSCH (D), FLORIDA: To make point of order.

GORE: Gentleman will state his point of order.

DEUTSCH: Mr. President, we have just completed the closest election in American history. There are at least...

GORE: The gentleman will suspend. The chair is advised by the parliamentarian that under section 18 of title 3, United States Code, no debate is allowed in the joint session. If the gentleman has a point of order, please state the point of order.

DEUTSCH: Mr. President, there are many Americans who still believe that the results we are going to certify today are illegitimate.

GORE: The gentleman will suspend. If the gentleman from Florida has a point of order, he may state the point of order at this time. Otherwise, the gentleman will suspend.

DEUTSCH: I will note the absence of quorum and respectfully request that we delay the proceedings until quorum is present.

GORE: The chair is advised by the parliamentarian that section 17 of title 3, United States Code, prescribes a single procedure for resolution of either an objection to a certificate or other questions arising in the matter. That includes a point of order that a quorum is not present.

The chair rules on the advice of the parliamentarian that the point order that a quorum is not present is subject to the requirement that it be in writing and signed by both a member of the House of Representatives and a senator. Is the point of order in writing and signed not only by member of the House of representatives, but also a senator?

DEUTSCH: It is in writing, but I do not have a senator.

GORE: The point order may not be received.

HASTINGS: Mr. President, and I take great pride in calling you that, I must object because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud and an attempt to suppress...

GORE: The chair...

HASTINGS: ... voter turnout.

GORE: The chair must remind members that under session 18 of title 3, United States Code, no debate is allowed in the joint session.

HASTINGS: Thank you, Mr. President.

To answer your question, Mr. President, the objection is in writing, signed by a number of members of the House of Representatives but not by a member of the Senate.

Thank you, Mr. President.

WATERS: I rise to object to the fraudulent 25 Florida electoral votes.

GORE: Is the objection in writing and signed by member of the House and a senator?

WATERS: The objection is in writing, and I don't care that it is not it is not signed by a member of the Senate.

REP. BOB FILNER (D), CALIFORNIA: I have an objection to the electoral votes from Florida.

GORE: Is the objection in writing? Is it signed by a member of the House of Representatives and a senator?

FILNER: No, it is not in writing, but I rise in solidarity with my colleagues who have previously expressed their objection.

GORE: The chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois, but -- hey.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACK: There were 13 objections in all, 12 from minority group members in the House of Representatives, last one saw was Bob Filner, who's a Democrat from California, a former professor, a big supporter of Al Gore, and clearly was just moved by the emotion of the moment.

They were all gavelled down. It was a great irony for the vice president. Here were some of his biggest supporters in the House of Representatives. He was clearly sympathetic, understood what they were trying to do, but he went right by the book. There was no debate allowed under the law that governs this joint session. There is also -- no objection can be heard unless it is signed by a House member and a senator.

Not a single senator would join members of the Congressional Black Caucus, much to their dismay. About a dozen members of the caucus walked out in protest, to protest the Florida vote, and then had a press conference in the gallery.

<snip>

Michael Moore showed this in Fahrenheit 911,

[joshcryer]

46. We won't.

There is no hope now of having a viable liberal third party. Nader killed that chance.

[Spider Jerusalem]

71. Sorry, but I don't think you know what "apolitical" means.

And, if you don't want that to happen in the future? Here's an idea: don't run a centre-right candidate and expect that the left owes them their vote because the Republican is worse. Gore was a terrible candidate, with all the charisma and personality of a tree stump. And he selected Joe bloody Lieberman as his running mate. Given his support for NAFTA, the Clinton administration's record of things like welfare "reform", telecoms deregulation, financial industry deregulation, DOMA, and much else besides, not to mention his wife's history as a well-known censorious moraliser via the PMRC, "Bush is worse" wasn't really a compelling reason for a lot of people on the left to vote for him. (And as an aside NAFTA was probably a contributing factor to his loss in his home state; the Southern textile industry lost hundreds of thousands of jobs between 1994 and 2000. It had been at one time the largest industry and largest employer in the state of Tennessee. That's something that'll have an effect.)

[joshcryer]

73. The blame from my POV goes like this:

Media > SCOTUS > Nader > Gore

The media trounced Gore, the SCOTUS ruled completely wrong, Nader fucked up Gore's campaign that was already a mess, and Gore made his own campaign a mess by selecting a shitty VP and refusing to use Clinton (and also requesting a selective recount).

You place the entire blame on Gore and it's just wrong, and that's why I consider this line of thinking apolitical.

[Spider Jerusalem]

78. I don't agree, really.

Nader took far fewer votes from Gore than Gore lost to Bush. (Note that I haven't mentioned the media, which, yes, were notably hostile to Gore in 2000; that's a factor that can't be discounted.) And I place most of the blame on the Supreme Court, actually; a full recount of Florida's votes would have seen Gore emerge the winner.

[joshcryer]

82. Gore had zero control over the media narrative.

The media wanted it to be a horse race.

Most of the votes Nader won in FL by were independents. He would not have garnered that many votes had he not campaigned there in the run up to the election.

I would place more blame on the SCOTUS but there should have been no horse race, Gore was the more qualified candidate, had the better platform, and overall was the better leader. But I would be fine interchanging them in the discussion.

And yeah, if there was an immediate statewide recount, then there would've been no issue. Katherine Harris should also probably be in there, too, because she didn't do that (and she removed hundreds of thousands from the voter rolls). Gore's request for selective recounting was a very bad move, and Al Franken learned from that mistake. The Supreme Court should have ruled for an immediate statewide recount and should not have taken weeks to decide (granted it went through the lower courts but the process was very slow). As soon as Gore called for a selective recount (which apparently FL electoral code allowed for) the courts should've intervened.

It's an extremely complex situation but because Nader broke his promise not to campaign in swing states, he does deserve some part of the blame.

So with your thoughtful commentary I would say: SCOTUS > Media > Katherine Harris > Nader > Gore

Unlike many who say Gore didn't bring the votes, I do not blame him for that, because I remember the media back then, how Crossfire was the nexus of every stupid media talking point. MediaWhoresOnline, Daily Howler, and indeed, this very website was created in the aftermath because of how Al Gore was treated by the media. Gore's failing was strategic. Lieberman was an awful pick, distancing from Clinton was a foolish maneuver, and selective recounts were an error.

But let it be understood, SCOTUS isn't our friend, the Media isn't our friend, Katherine Harris isn't our friend. But Nader should've been our friend. Instead he decided to give us, in his words, "a cold shower."

[Spider Jerusalem]

83. ...

Inherent flaw in your reasoning: saying that "Nader would not have gained those votes had he not campaigned" doesn't automatically mean Gore would have won them. We have no real evidence that, absent Nader campaigning in Florida, or absent Nader on the ballot in Florida, Gore would have won by a larger margin. However, we DO have evidence that a full recount would have seen Gore emerge the winner.

[joshcryer]

84. Gore's strategy changes completely though.

Nader goes off to safe states to rack up more votes for his party. Gore gets a breather and gets to go to Tennessee.

Regardless, Nader's camp were the ones who came up with the 24k number, the number of voters they believed would've voted for Gore. That's where that number comes from, it's to diminish the 97k number by 3/4ths. 500-1000 people out of almost 100k wouldn't have voted for Gore? I think that's a harder pill to swallow.

[Spider Jerusalem]

86. And how does Gore win Tennessee?

Clinton didn't break 50% in Tennessee in '92 or '96; the only reason Clinton/Gore won Tennessee was because of Perot siphoning votes from first Bush and then Dole. Bush took over 50% of the vote in Tennessee in 2000 (and his margin over Gore was nearly 4%).

[joshcryer]

87. Fair enough, but how about NH?

Nader campaigned hard there, too.

Looking up this history, is quite interesting.

Mr. Nader said at the Press Club that surveys of voters leaving the polls showed he had received more Republican votes than Democratic votes in New Hampshire in 2000.

That is true. New Hampshire has 30 percent more registered Republicans than registered Democrats.

But people there did not vote a straight party line for president in 2000. On the question of whom they would have voted for with only two candidates on the ballot, 3 percent of those who said they would have voted for Mr. Gore voted for Mr. Nader, and only 2 percent of voters who said they would have voted for Mr. Bush voted for Mr. Nader.

Of the 2.9 million voters who supported Mr. Nader in 2000, 58 percent voted for a Democrat for the House of Representatives, and only 27 percent voted for a Republican.

[morningfog]

36. Because some simpleton party-liners have a 14 year obsession.

Or they secretly love bush.

[scarletwoman]

40. Because it's so much easier to rail against the past than it is to offer solutions for the present.

Why deal with what is, when it's so much more emotionally satisfying to get yer hate on over what was?

Ranting about Nader doesn't solve a single thing. All it does is keep people focused on old arguments that will never go anywhere. You can't change the past.

But the American psyche seems to be fixated on blaming and shaming, rather than looking for solutions.

[joshcryer]

43. Bringing up Nader *is* talking about *present solutions.*

Because what Nader did was divide the left and chopped it up piecemeal. And yet it's still defended, to this day.

[leftstreet]

47. No. The DLClintons divided the left

And now another one's running

But the Third Wayers are nervous for absolutely no reason. Hillary has rock star status. The GOP has nothing. It'll be an easy win for her

No sense further alienating what's left of the base over it. That makes no sense

[joshcryer]

49. I'm not concerned about the apolitical left.

They can spout off all they want, I really don't care.

[leftstreet]

55. LOL n/t

[rhett o rick]

98. Crapping on the Left at every opportunity is an end in itself. nm

[scarletwoman]

51. How? It's just another exercise in divisiveness.

The 2000 election is water under the bridge, what happened, happened.

It's only being brought up to find fault and point fingers - how in the world is that supposed to help bring people together into a cohesive united front? Rhetorical question - answer: it doesn't.

When you attack people, the natural response is defensiveness. You perpetuate the divide instead of building a united front.

[joshcryer]

58. The reprecussions are still being felt.

So what happened didn't just happen, it's happening right now.

What's so fucked up about that is when it did happen, when the SCOTUS decision came down, and when a supposed progressive defended it (Greenwald), we were trashed for saying he was wrong.

We have to figure out how to fix this crap. If we can't discuss topics that are very important, then we are lost. If we fall into this cycle of arguing for the sake of arguing rather than using facts and the truth, we are not going anywhere.

I haven't attacked anyone and in fact I refused to rec the "fuck nader and his supporters" thread. Yet I've been relentlessly attacked for pointing out how 2000 went down. People telling me stuff like how labor sat out those elections, or telling me about how Gore let down the people (without acknowledging the absolute media war which went all out against him).

These are important things to recognize. It's going to happen again in 2016. Clinton is going to be under more scrutiny than any other President, assuming she runs, the Democrat will be under more scrutiny than ever before.

[G_j]

88. I'm sorry, but I think it is really not important.

The Green party always runs someone, just as the Libertarians do.
I don't see any Naders looming in the future. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

[HereSince1628]

92. Yah, it's important to make the base feel more optionless and captured by the party elite

Primary contests! Whaa! They just make us look bad and cost money we don't have!

Just look!!!

We haven't been able to come back together and get a win after a primary since . . . 2008!

[GeorgeGist]

52. Distract disrupt delude

[A HERETIC I AM]

53. Because DU's outrage runs in cycles. In a few weeks we'll be overrun by Hooters threads.

Or Pitbulls.

Or Breastfeeding.

It is almost as predictable as the seasons.

[joshcryer]

64. I don't see Nader coming up again until SCOTUS kills EEOC.

And of course it'll be merited then, too, but everyone will whine that we shouldn't be talking about something that happened 14 years ago. We should just shut the fuck up even though its repercussions are still being felt to this day.

The EEOC hearing is on the docket this fall, and if this SCOTUS is any indication, they will erode its power to go forward with litigation. (Despite that less than 1% of EEOC claims ever go to litigation.)

[A HERETIC I AM]

69. It will come up again when someone writes an OP that piques peoples interest/outrage...

Or, if Nader makes some news of some sort.


Just as with any other subject.

[840high]

76. I'm laughing. You're right.

[Cha]

56. Leave Nader Alone.. he had Zero to do with the 2000 Decision that cost Gore the Presidency..

ZERO. he and his ratfucker tactics shall not be discussed. End of story.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

80. LEAVE RALPHIE ALONE

[vi5]

57. Deflection....preparation for 2014 and 2016...

So they can set up to blame losses on "the far left" (apparently anyone to the left of Reagan Democrats like our President it seems) rather than the the 3rd way/DLC/Centrists.

[whatchamacallit]

59. Because he's still fun fodder for shit-stirring trolls

Honestly, nothing else really explains it.

[MohRokTah]

65. Because if leftist purists continue to demand ideological purity in national elections...

it serves no other purpose than to push the party to the right in order to find the votes to make up for the fact that it cannot and will never run somebody that meets all of their purist demands.

We saw that demonstrated in the real world quite starkly after Gore lost. The ideological purists became unreliable voters. The party moved right.

The more the purists demand, the less likely they are to get it. The party will never cater to unreliable voters.

You're beginning to see the same sort of unreliability on the right with the teabaggers. The GOP is beginning to wake up to the fact that the teabaggers are becoming unreliable, and thus they are being pushed away. If history is ay clue, should the GOP lose seats in the House and fail to pick up control of the Senate, the GOP may actually be forced to the left in order to pick up the votes they are losing from unreliable teabagging voters. It will require a further loss in 2016 to solidify the required political movement, though.

[winter is coming]

77. Please give us some examples of those "purist" demands.

Which policies does the left believe the Democratic Party should espouse that are untenable, and why?

Which of our ideals do you feel are disposable? What should we be willing to give up in the name of winning elections? What should we not be willing to sacrifice?

[reddread]

93. hope you get a response

Last edited Fri Jul 4, 2014, 09:59 AM - Edit history (1)

those liberal extremist professional leftists and purity pony collectors may have to shut up and do as told.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

81. This ^ ^ ^

[B Calm]

74. People are rightfully upset with Bush's Supreme Court

and some are blaming Nader for all of it!

[Autumn]

94. Easier to beat the shit out of Nader than the supreme court.

That would be my guess.

[reddread]

95. reminds me of those repurposed Bozo the clown punching bags

given a choice between the W version and anything with Green in it,
wonder what these folks would choose?

[Autumn]

96. The W version. Because Nader!!!

[Bobbie Jo]

97. To drive home the point

that elections matter. The current clusterfuck that is SCOTUS is a prime example of what happens when RW'ers are are in control of "governing."