You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #63: it's not even about Florida though [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #37
63. it's not even about Florida though
it's about New Hampshire, it's about Oregon, it's about Iowa, it's about Wisconsin, it's about Minnesota, it's about New Mexico, it's about Tennessee, states that Gore lost or just barely won where he had to devote resources and time that could have gone other places.

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.

It also seemed that Nader spent far more time bashing Gore and Democrats than he did bashing Bush and Republicans, or at least the M$M reported it that way. Everywhere he went and gave a speech, the local news played a clip of Nader saying "Gore sucks. Gore is a liar. Don't vote for Gore." and who knows how much impact that had. But I can definitely say that it did not help to defeat George W. Bush.

Of course, just because I considered it of paramount importance to defeat George W. Bush, does not mean that Nader or Nader voters need to see things that way either in 2000, or now. Nader had every right to work to help elect George W. Bush, just like Ken Lay and Dick Cheney and George Will and Tony Snow and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and any other American citizen had that right. You just cannot do something like that and then try to hang onto your formerly well deserved status as a progressive icon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC