Saying something here that might not go over well but here it is...

[Samrob]

Biden, NATO, Ukraine...proving that there is strength in UNITY. Where there is unity, there is strength. Such has always been true with America. United, we are unbeaten.
Such has been true during the few times Democrats have been united. We are unbeatable when unified.
In 2000 we were united...we were beaten by SCOTUS, not ourselves. In 2016 were were not united as we should have been. In 2020 we were as united as we could be in the face of outside forces working very hard to divide us and to some extent they almost succeeded. All things being equal, we are unbeatable if we stay united. We can resolve our differences once we win big but we can only win and win big if we stay united. Let's do this! Take a lesson from the good and the bad. Take a lesson from the bad GOP. There is strength in their unity even if their unity is based on lies and deceit. We must be stronger and therefore more unified.
WE CAN DO THIS!!

[DURHAM D]

1. Seems that right now it is student loans that divides Democrats.

amazing and pathetic

[Irish_Dem]

2. Putin/GOP propaganda is designed to divide and conquer.

It has been a successful strategy.

[gab13by13]

3. Being united and GOTV is 100% successful in a fair election.

The 2000 election was not a fair election and I guarantee there are forces out there doing their best to make 2022 a rigged election.

[House of Roberts]

4. In 2000 we were not united.

Nader's Green Party candidacy cost us the Presidency.

[Hoyt]

6. Exactly. How quickly people forget. Nader got 2.7% of vote. And, there was Lieberman.

[housecat]

14. and comrade Jill Stein

[gab13by13]

7. C'mon man,

Jeb Bush stopped the vote count because Gore had more votes than his brother. Where in the Constitution does it say the Supreme Court picks our president.

Al Gore won Florida which means he won,

[AZSkiffyGeek]

8. There is no proof Gore had more votes

There were reports after the fact that had the entire state been hand counted (which wasn't what Gore requested) he would have come out ahead, but he trailed the entire recount process.
That's not to say there weren't shenanigans (Buchanan's placement on some of the ballots), but had Nader not ran, Gore would've won NH and that would have changed the results.

[gab13by13]

11. Gore won Florida.

Why weren't all of the votes counted in Florida? Gore trailed because Jeb Bush stopped the vote count in the biggest Democratic county.

Why were all the votes counted in Republican districts?

Where does it say in the Constitution that the Supreme Court picks the president?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

12. Nope.

Gore requested multiple recounts in the Democratic counties and he still trailed. The Supreme Court got involved (which it shouldn't have).
But it also didn't "pick the president" it stopped the hand recount in select counties.

Unless you have a crystal ball that tells you what votes weren't counted, you have no clue that Gore had enough votes, because he trailed the entire recount process.

The fact is that a bunch of Democrats (myself included, sadly) listened to Michael Moore and other progressives who argued there wasn't any difference between Gore and Bush. Add to Gore's uninspiring campaign and horrible VP selection, it was close enough that Nader swung the election.

Sound familiar - because it was the same thing that gave us Trump.

Blaming the Supreme Court and Jeb Bush and Katharine Harris is just people trying to avoid taking responsibility for the damage the left caused the country.

Had Nader not run, I believe Gore would've won fair and square, 9/11 wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

[gab13by13]

13. Gore did not get the recounts he asked for,

A year later, in November 2001, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago announced the results of an examination of all 170,000 undervotes and overvotes.

NORC found that with a full statewide hand recount, Gore would have won Florida under every possible vote standard. Depending on which standard was used, his margin of victory would have varied from 60 to 171 votes.

The recount was paid for by a consortium of news outlets — CNN, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Tribune Company, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, the St. Petersburg Times, and the Palm Beach Post. But this was just two months after the September 11 terrorist attacks. The outlets patriotically buried the blockbuster news that George W. Bush was not the legitimate president of the United States.

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/10/democrats-should-remember-al-gore-won-florida-in-2000-but-lost-the-presidency-with-a-preemptive-surrender/

[AZSkiffyGeek]

20. But Gore didn't ask for a statewide hand recount

He asked for four Democratic counties to be recounted. I'm assuming because the thinking was there was a greater chance of picking up votes in those counties and that the rest would've added more to Bush's totals. That was a strategic mistake on Gore's part.

[TiberiusB]

15. Punching down, it never gets old...

When you lose by such a tiny margin to a party that massively disenfranchised voters in multiple states, but especially Florida, and who then went on to stage phony protests to encourage the Supreme Court to stop the recount, you should be looking looking in the mirror for the problem, not kicking the underdog. Why not blame the other parties that were running? Why just Nader? Gore lost by so few votes, that had ANY of the competing bit players stepped aside, he could have won. But, you know how the "Left" be, always trying to do better than the broken duopoly that has been racing downhill for decades, thinking they could participate in a "democracy". Jerks.

Also, not everyone agrees that Gore wouldn't have won with a full recount AND a challenge to all the rejected ballots that heavily favored the Democrats.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa

As for crystal balls, you might want to take your own advice, as you seem to think you have a lock on exactly how events would have unfolded had Gore won. It would be beyond nice to live in that world, but it will forever be the stuff of conjecture and speculation.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

22. The "Left" that has consistently cost us elections?

The "Left" that argued there was no difference between Bush and Gore?
The "Left" that said there was no difference between Trump and Clinton?
The "Left" that didn't show up for the 2010 midterms because they didn't get a public option?
The "Left" that is threatening to not show up in 2022 because of student loans and the Green New Deal?
The "Left" that doesn't understand that we don't live in a parliamentary system and that the cold reality is that in National elections there is only a binary choice?

Awfully prickly and critical of Democrats on a Democratic message board...

[Cha]

24. Good Answer!

💙💛

[TiberiusB]

31. Uh, no, it isn't

Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2022, 11:46 AM - Edit history (1)

There are numerous theories for all those "examples", ranging from weak messaging to republican voter suppression to depressed minority turnout. It's deeply selective to pronounce the "Left" boogie man the reason while conveniently ignoring every other factor.

[TiberiusB]

29. So the problem is democratic voters

Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2022, 12:53 PM - Edit history (5)

Or is it the progressive caucus? The 2010 crushing defeat has been analyzed endlessly. The reasons were numerous, and depressed turnout was a factor, but it was across many demographic groups and historically not exactly unprecedented:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/10/14211994/obama-democrats-downballot

Did "socialism" in the form of the ACA hurt them?

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/04/12/healthcare-vote-doomed-13-democrats-in-2010-elections

There are arguments and counter arguments for all of them. What is obvious, I think, is that the GOP has aggressively capitalized on every opportunity to entrench their power while the Democrats have leaned too heavily on expected norms and traditions. That, and the profound corruption that comes from the rising tsunami of corporate cash.

The 2016 loss, again, had multiple factors. Hillary Clinton, whether you loathe or love her, was deeply despised by the Right and had enduring trust issues across the board thanks to decades of consistent messaging from the Right and the often complicit media. The "but her emails" accusations strongly fed into this narrative. I'd say Comey cost her the election, not the Left. Her campaign was also criticized for weak messaging and ignoring states that were assumed to be sure wins. Minority turnout was decidedly in her favor, but the overall numbers were lower than they were for Obama. White women, who were expected to largely be energized at the prospect of a woman President, went for Trump. In the end, Trump still lost the popular vote, but the GOP targeted the Electoral College, and so managed to eek out a victory without winning the majority. Biden almost suffered the same fate. I think people largely forget that he won in much the same way Trump did, with narrow victories in key states. Yes, he got a bigger share of the popular vote, but getting more voters in the cities and blue districts that are already in the bag doesn't move the electoral needle, sadly.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/02/why-im-defending-hillary-clinton-commentary.html

[Hoyt]

16. Good luck with anyone believing facts. We definitely would have been better off with Gore, but over

300,000 voters in Florida -- who usually lean Democratic -- did the same thing to Gore as happened to Hillary Clinton.

Not so sure we would have been spared 9/11, but who knows. Sure would have been spared invading Iraq, and the murder of innocent Iraqis.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

21. That's true - we don't know for sure

But Clinton was all about the dangers Bin Laden posed, so I doubt Gore would've ignored the warnings, or the August memo.

[TiberiusB]

32. almost certainly so

Unfortunately, when it comes to the military, the Democrats have virtually never shown any reluctance to embrace even the most hawkish positions. This may be thanks to the military being a massive welfare project with it's tendrils in almost every state and district. Reagan labelling the Democrats as weak certainly played a part in pushing the party rightward.

Had 9/11 happened on Gore's watch, it would have been hard to ignore the widespread clamoring for an armed response. I doubt we would have invaded Iraq, and likely occupation of Afghanistan would have been avoided. Biden, thankfully, finally pulled out of Afghanistan, but the military budget has only grown bigger since then.

[CaptainTruth]

18. The Constitution specifies when electors must be certified.

As far as I know there's no constitutional method of extending the vote counting period & delaying elector certification beyond that date. (Someone please let me know if I'm wrong on that.)

So, the Constitution specifies when electors must be certified but in 2000 SCOTUS stopped the FL vote count BEFORE that date.

Funny, I remember folks on the Right complaining about "activist judges" but they didn't complain when judges interfered in the counting of ballots.

[KPN]

17. Actually, they weren't we -- just saying.

[Samrob]

34. Nader was not a Democrat. Neither was Jill. Neither was Lieberman as it turns out. nt

Real Dems knew the score. I still believe with a legitimate recount and SCOTUS staying out of it, Gore would have been proved to be the winner.

[Ferrets are Cool]

5. Unbeaten?

Really?

[2naSalit]

9. WE HAVE TO DO THIS.

[Escurumbele]

10. I am with you. Yes, lets stay united, lets all go out and vote, lets get the repub creeps out of

politics.

[Joinfortmill]

19. Totally agree. And everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, we value is on the line.

[hunter]

23. You should make your paragraphs short, punching "enter" twice at the end of each.

I'm a hardcore member of the Democratic Party -- money, activism, everything.

That's all I have to say.

[sop]

25. The voters who tend not to vote are the ones who would benefit most from Democratic policies.

Certain groups within the traditional Democratic party coalition cannot be bothered to vote. It's infuriating.

[bluboid]

26. wow! Brilliant, Samrob -

THANK YOU for stating it clear as a bell! we can always use a reminder like this one.

[calimary]

27. I second that!

Let’s NEVER forget it, either.

It’s simple numbers. Democrats outnumber Republicans. There are more of us than there are of the other guys. All we have to do it get out the VOTE.

[calimary]

28. Dupe. Sorry about that.

But I’ll leave one line in place.

VOTE, DAMMIT!!!!!

[brooklynite]

30. In 2000, we were NOT united in your context

We had Ralph Nader and a third Party advocating that there was no difference between Democrats and Republicans, and enough people (butterfly ballots notwithstanding) bought into that message.

[ananda]

33. Actually, in 2000, we WERE beaten by ourselves.

Nobody stood up to make sure the Florida ballots were
counted fairly.

In the end, all we had, after the fact, was a tepid little
march in Miami led by Jesse Jackson.