General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums2000 New Hampshire. Bush 48.07 Gore 46.80 RALPH NADER 3.90.=Bush 4 electoral votes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_New_Hampshire,_2000New Hampshire was by 2000 considered to be a swing state in otherwise solidly liberal New England. While it had been a Republican stronghold for Ronald Reagan and George H.W.
Bush in the 1980s, Democrat Bill Clinton managed to win the state two elections in a row in the 1990s, and the state was a toss-up in 2000. Bush narrowly eked out a win, with a plurality of 48% of the vote over Gore's 47%. A major contributing factor to Bush's victory is that 5% of the state voted for a third party candidate, mostly for left-leaning Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, who took votes away from Gore. Bush won 6 of the 10 counties, including winning Belknap County with over 55% and winning every town. Bush also won in New Hampshire's 1st congressional district.
[edit] Results
United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2000
Party Candidate Running mate Votes Percentage Electoral votes
Republican George Bush Dick Cheney 273,559 48.07% 4
Democratic Al Gore Joe Lieberman 266,348 46.80% 0
Green Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke 22,198 3.90% 0
Libertarian Harry Browne Art Olivier 2,757 0.48% 0
Reform Pat Buchanan Ezola Foster 2,615 0.46% 0
Others - - 1,604 0.29% 0
Totals - 100.00% 4
Voter turnout (Voting age/Registered) 61%/67%
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)4 freakin' electoral votes.
Had Al Gore gotten those 4 little electoral votes Al Gore was the 43rd President.
A state Clinton won TWICE.
Ralph Nader got 3.90%.
Al Gore was 99% of the way there. Ralph Nader was the 1% that took the election away and threw it to George W. Bush.
Had Gore won New Hampshire, without the interference of the pesky, republican financed third party runs, Florida and 12/12/2000 would not have mattered.
The election would easily have been called for Gore, and Bush would have conceded by 11pm
eastern time.
thanks Ralph Nader.
And those that whine the loudest in 2013 and repeat the meme of both parties being the same remember something
Bush and Nader are one and the same
Bush and Nader are one and the same
Bush and Nader are one and the same.
If anything there should be some method that a candidate in each state needs 50%,
and that if the two are under 50, the 3rd party voters need to select one of the two or noone the same time they vote.
imho.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,848 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)13 years later, I just cannot get worked up.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)He would be right at home with today's Congressional Republicans trying to destroy America.
Nader has made millions since 2000.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)And yes, Lieberman is a Republican.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Lieberman was supposed to inoculate Gore because he had played the finger-wagging morality scold in the Senate against the dastardly Clenis. People seem to forget that in 2000, in the national mindset at least, 9-11 hadn't happened yet, there were no neo-cons, no IWR vote, a lot of the commonly accepted fault lines didn't exist. With Lieberman it boiled down to our old friend anti-sex puritanism, which some erstwhile "progressives" imagined, wrongly, that the voters wanted.
In reality, I think most voters didn't really give that much of a shit about Clinton's sex life; that was apparent from the midterms.
Lieberman was an ass, but many of the reasons he is so widely loathed now hadn't come into being yet.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)One could probably mount a foolish argument about how the "moral kickback" from a blow job caused Gore to pick Lieberman.
Nader deserves less blame than those preachy souls who want politicians to embody morality in the same way a religious figure does.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I suspect he feels it was a bad move, if he still lies awake replaying that chapter.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and in a Green environment type state.
It boggles the mind.
Bush did wonders for the environment of America, didn't he?
All the people that did not vote for Al Gore.
matters little to me if they voted 3rd party or stayed at home.
They are the direct cause for those 4 little electoral votes.
NEVER AGAIN.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)You are absolutely right.
And if I were to do it again, I would STILL reject a ticket with Lieberman.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)WTF?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)WTF? Where did you get that from?
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Didn't then, wouldn't now.
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)He wasn't nearly as bad back then, or maybe I was just so young (24 years old) that I had no idea that he was that bad. He had fairly socially moderate views. I would still vote for Gore again and against the Republican Lieberman ran against that year. He ran against the Waterbury mayor, Phil Giordano, who turned out to be a pedophile. He sexually abused a two little girls and then was sentenced to 37 years. Lieberman was indeed better then that. I did not vote for him in 2006 as he essentially ran as the de facto Repub. I voted for Lamont.
brush
(61,033 posts)with him as a VP on a dem ticket how can you possibly justify that if it allowed a chance for Bush to win? Bush/Chaney so destroyed the country we're still not recovered. And a VP can be easily shunted off to just moderating the Senate, worth no more than "a bucket of warm spit" as John Nance Garner said about serving as FDR's VP. I'm pretty sure Gore would have seen to that.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)First, you are wrong. You have no way of knowing how Green voters would have voted absent a Green candidate.
Second, the presidency was stolen via five conservative political activist Justices of the Supreme Court.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Why would a Green candidate in protest vote for George W. Bush? Bush did nothing to warrant anyone interested in the environment anything, nor did his father so why would they have voted for W?(Or Jeb in 2016?)
And 65percent could have stayed home and Gore still could have prevailed with just 1/3 of those votes.
And more important is the voters Nader convinced by his words to just not bother as Nader basically campaigned on both are the same, don't bother, matters little who wins.
So any way you look at it, Nader and his voters should not care what has happened, as Nader campaigned on voting is a waste of time.
but to recap
New Hampshire came one month prior to Florida.
End of 2000 election with just two parties was Nov. 2000
Because of more than 2 parties, election did not get decided til a month later.
Time line shows November comes before December.
Plus all the voters in NH and nationwide that stayed home because Ralph said in essence not to bother.
Because his both parties are the same crap said often enough was accepted by enough people to throw the election.
Words have meaning. And he was irresponsible in his words
Which again, even if you don't think he stole the election for the republican party which financed him, his words are easily now seen as lies.
Because SCOTUS itself shows the two candidates are not the same.
3rd party votes have direct consequences every time.
Any and all protest votes NOT cast for the democratic party also caused 2010 results.
The republicans did not find magic voters in those governor and senate races.
The protest why bother to vote democratic voters who sat on their hand allowed Scott, Walker, Christie, and all the others to sneak in.
And IMHO Nader himself is very lazy.
He did not actually want to have to do anything so he ran knowing he would never have to work at it, as he would not win.
He could have been a 60th vote in the Senate.
Instead he was a court jester and as he was financed by the rightwing stoking his massive ego, he should be intellectually honest and take the credit for all he created.
There should not in a presidential election be someone running who cannot win.
Because at the end of the day, one needs to caucus with a party like lower offices.
Had he run for senate, and won,
Whcih party in 2013 would Senator Nader be voting with when a 60th vote is needed?
Ralph Nader fans, please step up and let me know that.
Would Ralph Nader today vote with the President, or with the Tea Party?
That is the important question.
(Much like Bernie Sanders and whomever people think is the most liberal progressive senators out there DO vote for President Obama when their vote is the deal maker or breaker.
(Same as Dennis Kucinich did in the house).
And answer me this-
if Nader as Senator would be so absolutist as to get ZERO done just for principal, well,
that would make him akin to the absolutists in the Senate now.(WHICH by the way, at the end of the day, Rand Paul himself broke ranks with them, and voted Hagel in).
There is a time to whine, and a time to be an adult and cast ones vote.
Ralph Nader made it very easy to keep the whine flowing. By not running for an office he could have won.
Very clear and simple.
One has to be in it, to win it.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)First, Ralph Nader exercised his right as citizen to engage in the democratic process and run for President.
Second, all the voters, from NH, FL, and everywhere else, exercised their rights to participate in the democratic process and cast their vote for whom they chose.
Third, the Supreme Court wrongfully stepped to stop the democratic process from proceeding.
Finally, had the Supreme Court not usurped the democratic process, Al Gore would have rightfully been President beginning in 2001.
Do you still want to give those who blocked democracy a free pass and blame those who were exercising their rights?
Now, please proceed to argue that Bush v. Gore was a good a proper decision.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...the argument is that he SHOULD NOT have run for president.
The man toils in relative obscurity for 3 years out of four, then emerges to split the Democratic presidential vote.
He doesn't seem to be running for Congress, or a state legislature seat, or governor or attorney general or lieutenant governor or any of a dozen other seats he could run for as part of the process of moving the country left.
Our election system has a built-in problem... two parties that stem from the same political ideology split the vote for that particular ideology, which puts the other political ideology in charge.
The Tea Party didn't form a third-party movement to run against Democrats and Republicans in the general election, they formed an insurgent faction of the Republican party during the primaries and put a teabagger Republicans up against Democrats in the general.
If the Nader movement had formed an insurgent faction of the Democratic party and replaced DINOs and 3rd Wayers with Nader Democrats in the general election, Nader would actually have some kind of chance to make significantly more changes than popping out of the woodwork every leap year.
Now, we can fix this problem; instant runoff voting is one way, allocating federal representatives based on the "open list" system is another. I prefer the latter, as it eliminates congressional districts entirely and puts a state's slate of representatives up to the entire population. But that has yet to be done.
If Nader hadn't run, (eliminating your points 1 and 2) then Gore would likely have won New Hampshire, eliminating points 3 and 4, and we have President Gore.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)There should be means, such as instant run-off, for multiple parties to run.
I don't disagree with you on Nader and his focus on an non-viable president run.
But, my point remains. There are hundreds of things that could have prevented the 3 and 4 from happening. Gore could have chosen a better running mate, been a more aggressive candidate, used Bill Clinton. If Pat Buchanan hadn't been on the screwy Palm Beach County ballot, Gore would have easily carried it.
What chaps my ass is when people blame Nader, while absolving or ignoring the Supreme Court's stepping in to end the democratic process. It should have never gone to the SC, as in the SC should never have taken the case.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)in Nader's absence for NH to have gone to Gore. Where is the evidence that 32% of those Nader voters would have voted for Gore? They may have not voted at all. They may have voted for another 3rd party.
Do you have any exit polling?
Setting that to the side. Bush was president for one reason and one reason alone: Five members of the Supreme Court selected him.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)You are and will continue to be wrong. It is high time that the people that voted for Nader own up to their mistake.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And you're still totally wrong. Gore should have run as a Democrat.
Can you show us an impartial analysis that shows Nader getting the win for Bush?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)And in what way did Gore NOT run as a Democrat?
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/61
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)that you would show up as a Naderite apologist?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)A carnival of evil.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Really?
pnwmom
(110,259 posts)instead.
Other things -- like the mistake in the ballot layout, or Katherine Harris's machinations -- couldn't be helped by progressives.
Nader was the only progressive who aided Bush.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Either:
a. To Gore
b. To Bush
c. To nobody (voter stayed home)
The analyses that I've seen show that a. was less than b. In other words, Bush would have ended up with a larger lead.
But who knows?
In any case, Gore should have run a better campaign.
pnwmom
(110,259 posts)if Nader hadn't been on the ballot.
Right.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Imagine if Gore had been able to hold his base?
In any case, the evidence is pretty clear that Nader didn't lose the election for Gore:
http://my.firedoglake.com/jest/2012/08/26/debunking-pathological-myths-of-the-2000-election-part-1-cnn-exit-polls-prove-that-nader-did-not-cost-gore-fl/
Not that it matters. Nader has the right to run, and voters have the right to vote for him. If Democrats want to win elections, they need to make a strong Democratic case, not triangulate.
pnwmom
(110,259 posts)He says that only 25% of his voters would have voted for Bush, as opposed to 38% for Gore – that is, a full 50% more for Gore than for Bush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader
"Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: 'In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.'[61] (which would net a 13%, 12,665 votes, advantage for Gore over Bush.)"
Most of those "Democratic" Bush voters were "Reagan Democrats" who'd deserted the party years before. They just hadn't bothered to change their registrations.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Why, oh why, do you so badly want to legitimize Bush's presidency and the Bush v. Gore decision? I simply don't get it.
pnwmom
(110,259 posts)that the Bush vs. Gore decision landed in the hands of SCOTUS.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)There are stolen elections and there are honest elections.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Just because you say it authoritatively doesn't make it true. Do you happen to know what website you're on? Do you happen to know why it was formed? I do. I was here not long after. DU started because Bush stole the fucking election. If you've been sold a right wing bill of goods, don't come spewing it around these parts.
Edited to add: just because I have a clear understanding that the election was stolen in no way means I support these deranged anti-Nader rants still happening a dozen years after the fact.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)GrahamFall4Anything
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)This place has changed so much in recent years. We used to all KNOW without a doubt that Bush stole the election, and our knowledge was based on empirical facts. When Bradley Manning first showed up in the news, he enjoyed much more support here than he does now. I know that's not germane to this topic, but it all seems to be of a piece.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)My name is based on Bob Graham, Florida, one of the dearest men in political history
I wanted him for any position at all.
as someone else here said, Nader was the only progressive that threw the election to Bush.
Again, in 2000, one was NOT privy to the # of votes in each election.
So it was not known how deeply Nader hurt
the theft indeed occurred 12/12/2000 and we all went to places to detox.
you came here, I went to the Al Gore boards.
But only in 2012, when one compared the total # of voters, did it starkly and clearly show
in 2000, there were 10 million LESS voters than any other time.
Which means millions stayed home not bothering thanks to Ralphie's why bother spiels that both parties were the same.
Raw statistical numbers show it.
And that wasn't readily available in 2000.
Most people did not have internet like it is now back then.
There was NO social media for the average person.
(had there been,the phony protsters in miami dade county would have been called out and the recount continued.)
10 million stayed home.
Ralph Nader was the direct cause of that.
Al Gore won with New hampshire.
Again, it wasn't til later that it became apparent.
Florida wasn't even needed had Nader not been in the race.
That is liberal by the way. As is uber liberal Bob Graham, a true populist, man of the people who himself got screwed many times over (Mostly from faux populist John Edwards fans who hated Graham calling him old, ugly, boring, obsessive, and of course we all know what a fake and phony he was).IMHO
Again, name calling is really juvenile.
Just admit you like Ralph Nader and third parties, and don't care the democratic party lost in 2000 because of one.
You already said above, you would if the candidates were not to your liking vote against the democratic party in the 2016 election. it was right there a bunch of posts above.
Your words, not mine. I even asked you to clarify it and you did.
Me, I will vote 100% of the time for the democratic nominee...always have, always will.
Hillary has my vote the old fashioned way, she earned it. And she will IMHO and most others, be strongly supported by Senator Warren and Sanders and all the other democratic senators.
Because none of them want Bush to sneak back in, like Ralph Nader in 2000 allowed.
Ralph could have been a contender. Could have been Daniel Webster.
Instead of in a few decades be totally forgotten.
(now Daniel Webster was used on purpose here. But no, Nader was just too lazy to do that.
Actual serving no matter his views, was just too hard on a daily basis, and not $$$ enough.
Ironic isn't it?
Nader will always be forgotten as obsolete as the Whigs are to 2013.
union_maid
(3,502 posts)I know I should not be getting into this. I have to leave to do errands shortly for one thing. I can't help myself, though. I could see what might happen in October, not November. I was having arguments with a Nader voter who was all mad at me for saying that I wouldn't throw my vote away. Around October things were getting alarming and I remember saying to him that if Nader gave us Bush I would never, ever forgive him (Nader, not my friend)' Up to that point, like most liberals, I admired what he'd done in the past, but this was looking nutso. I said that I didn't blame the Nader voters who were sincere and lots of them were too young to really get how this was going to play out. That particular person came back and apologized like crazy after Bush showed his colors. The most vocal Nader voters didn't do that, though. They never accepted how flawed their judgement was and how even if you regarded Gore as the lesser of two evils, less evil is way better than more evil in terms of the effect on real lives.
I do agree that Gore ran a lousy campaign and in fact that he's not a great campaigner, but it's still pretty clear that if Nader had not taken the approach that he did, Gore would have won. Would have been close, but not Supreme Courth close.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)For what it's worth, I voted for Al Gore, and I still like him. I don't, however, begrudge Nader voters. Te race was so close that any number of things could have turned the election (remember the elderly Jewish women in Palm Beach County voting Buchanan?). Statistically speaking, none of us knows many Nader voters--there just weren't that many. But truly, Nader had the right to run in the election. It's how our system is set up, and it gets down to the core of what Democratic principles remain in this country. I hope you enjoy your weekend.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)You are giving a pass to the attack on democracy. You are instead placing the blame on the actual democratic process. Shame on you.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)"You are instead placing the blame on the actual democratic process. Shame on you."
BRAVO.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)the Constitution, but you will have someone (not me) on the other side that claim they followed the Constitution to the letter. The important fact is that is just 2% of Nader voters in each state voted for Gore, the Supreme Court would have been sidelined BY democracy.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)any Democrat would be comforted by that. Why would you even suggest that on a Democratic forum btw?
The SC stole the 2000 election and every Democrat who was paying attention at the time, knows that.
The SC has no role in elections for a reason. 2000 demonstrated that loud and clear.
The gall of them also to claim that that ruling 'would not set a precedent'. Proof that the five criminals responsible for that crime knew what they were doing. Every SC ruling sets a precedent, EXCEPT that decision??
They thank you for helping cover their crime.
Nader ran a legal campaign, which he and every other American citizen has a right to do.
Bush lost the election, and his cohorts on the SC intervened and handed it to him.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Nader haters have a blind spot when it comes to the Dancing Supremes.
I suppose it's more comforting to blame Nader than to accept the fact that our democracy is toast.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)had nothing to do with New Hampshire, Iowa, Oregon, Wisconsin, or New Mexico. States that would have made the Supreme Court irrelevant if not for one very, very evil person - Ralph Nader.
Gore won Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon and New Mexico by a mere 16,983 total votes. Nader's total in those 4 was 222,052.
Nader could have very easily tipped those states into Bush's column as well. In fact, much to his everlasting discredit, he tried, he actually tried to tip them into Bush;s column.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/29/us/2000-campaign-green-party-iowa-rally-nader-s-supporters-stand-their-ground.html
There he is campaigning in Iowa on October 29, 2000. Running an anti-Democrat campaign
"Mr. Nader himself was unsparing in his criticism of the Democrats, attacking them more often and more harshly than he did the Republicans."
Here's Nader campaigning in Wisconsin on 1 November 2000
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0011/01/se.03.html
And he could not seem to attack Bush without attacking Gore first "Listen to this: Both Al Gore and George W. Bush are on the same page, tearing away the safety net for poor women and their children."
But no, it is not like razor thin margins in states Gore could otherwise have won handily, and it is not like an anti-Gore message could have had anything to do with putting Bush in the White House.
Nader haters were not born, they were made when people watched Nader help, in a balance-tipping way, put George W. Bush into the White House. It is easier to blame Nader because we fucking saw him do it, and we tried to warn him before it happened. Note how both articles mention that possibility. It's not exactly rocket surgery to figure the math that "Hey, if enough people vote for Nader that otherwise would have voted for Gore, Bush could win some states that he otherwise would have lost and thereby get enough electoral votes to win." And in the words of Atreyu "HOW CAN HE LET THAT HAPPEN?"
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)a terrible campaign. Al Gore may have arguably been a liberal, but his campaign was a corporate conservative DLC pile of shit through and through that focused entirely on attracting the disaffected republican vote at the expense of their formerly dependable allies.
Just like this dumb post.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)whatever that means
simply go back in time and take one Ralph Fucking Nader out of the picture and George W. Bush only gets to the White House as a visitor.
Yeah, sure, a terrible campaign, much worse than McGovern, Mondale or Dukakis. Worse than Kerry. Kerry, who was running against a known quantity which the media in 2000 had painted as a moderate not all that much different from Gore - a notion that Ralph Nader helped to spread too.
No, it was Nader who ran the terrible campaign. One that was designed and destined to help put George W. Bush into the White House.
It is the denial of that simple basic fact that seems rally dumb to me. It feels like I am arguing with flat earthers.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)They just occupy different sides of the political spectrum. The intensity of insanity, cluelessness and recklessness is the same.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)It wasn't Gore's fault that he had a shitty campaign and a shittier VP pick. It wasn't the SCOTUS fault that they decided to end the vote count because Florida couldn't get their act together.
It was all Nader and Lewinsky.
She and Nader should team up, since they are the most powerful beings in the universe.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Probably there were thousands of things that could have been different if you want to get into the weeds, but clearly enough things were done right for Gore to do well against two opponents and a media that was gunning for him for over a year.
As for the VP pick, I remember many years back, perhaps in 2003, or 2004, it being asked whether the Lieberman VP pick helped or hurt the ticket and the consensus was, and a strong case was made, that it helped. Lieberman seemed to have taken a hard right turn after 911, his 2004 Presidential campaign, and his 2006 primary defeat.
I would never say that it is ALL Nader, but anybody who cares about the things that Nader claims to care about, like I do (on many issues) should have been working in 2000 to keep George W. Bush from winning that election. Instead Nader was working to HELP Bush win that election and WITHOUT that help, not that it was the ONLY factor, but it was a factor significant enough to have made ALL the difference. Take Nader away and Bush loses. Certainly there were other factors involved and other people doing their part. To name some names - Lawrence O'Donnell, Alexander Cockburn, Katrina Vandenheuvel, Maureen Dowd, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert. All of them, and some of them are supposed to be on the left, played a part in helping to elect George W. Bush - but their parts were probably not key. Take any one of them away. Heck, take any two or three of them away, and Bush probably still wins (with Nader's help).
Nader is the one who stands out as crucial, the one with most of the blame. Further, his presence on the wrong side is the one that stands out as the biggest betrayal. I mean, it was so ironic to get these money appeals from Public Citizen in 2003. They would say "oh no, the Bush administration is awful, we have to fight them, send money now." And I am thinking "gee, who the fuck could have predicted THAT?" and "should have thought of that before you worked so hard to elect him Ralph".
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Had just 1.5% of those people voted for Gore instead of Nader, the nation would have been spared 9/11, close to 12,000 dead americans and countless dead Iraqis and Afghans, and two costly wars on the national treasury. Not to mention 10 trillion in new debt, invasions of personal liberties, and unparalleled attacks on women's rights.
Nader voters in 2000, go ahead and be proud of yourselves. Go ahead and call me names. I am wiser than you, I saw what was coming and voted accordingly, I don't give a fuck about what you think concerning Nader. At the end of every day since that fateful election day in November 2000, I remain solid in my view that you fucked up and because of that put the country into a real damned bind.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)then you are right back at SCOTUS and Jeb Bush and Catherine Harris, etc. I think New Hampshire is more relevant as well as Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Oregon.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)once independent organizations had counted and re-counted ALL votes, including disputed votes. If just 2% of the people that voted for Nader had instead voted for Gore, the Supreme Court would have been sidelined, Gore would have been our President. I find the claim that the Supreme Court stole the election specious at best, downright disingenuous at worst.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)as if it is the only state that mattered and as if New Hampshire and Iowa and Oregon don't count, and then with Florida they can keep bringing it back to SCOTUS and Jeb Bush, whereas that is harder to do when you concentrate on New Hampshire.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)You really are a Bush/SCOTUS apologist. I am amazed that supposed Democrats think this way. Why are you trying so hard to legitimize Bush? Hmmm, I wonder.....
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Hey, unlike Nader, at least I didn't help him to get elected.
And thanks to Nader we got Roberts and Alito too.
Without Nader, Gore wins New Hampshire, wins big in Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon and New Mexico, and there's no Bush v. Gore to even discuss.
Legitimize Bush? He served two terms, thanks to Ralph. I expect rightwing judges to help the rightwing. I don't expect that from somebody who claims to be from the left. Twelve years later, I still have not forgotten. I still have not forgiven. A certain egotistical a$$hole would need to apologize before forgiveness can even be considered.
Why do YOU try so hard to legitimize Ralph?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)You choose to blame those exercising their constitutional rights rather than those who halted the democratic process.
By saying Nader is at fault, because he narrowed the race, you are saying that Bush did well enough to earn his stolen election. Shameful bush apologia.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)and won a whole bunch of states. 29 to be exact.
So yeah, he did pretty good, especially with Nader's help.
Nader, like anybody else in this country, did have an absolute constitutional right to try to help Bush win the election.
But just because the law gives you a right to do something, does not make that thing a good thing to do, or a smart thing to do. In the final analysis, it was a very evil thing to do, and he was warned and he should have known better and he should be very, very sorry for what he did.
It's very simple election math. In New Hampshire 273,559 was greater than 266,348 + 22,198
And it's another simple fact that Nader in New Hampshire pre-empts SCOTUS in Florida and renders it moot.
Nader was key to putting Bush in the White House and that is far, far more shameful than anything that I can write on the internets.
But whatever, give me some other explanation for why you are certain the sun revolves around the earth.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Have you even read it? Do you understand it?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)That seems like a much bigger leap of faith - to assume that all of those voters would have either not voted or voted for some other third party. Perot got 48,000 votes in 1996, but it's hard to tell if he would get votes from the left or from the right. In 2004, in spite of the vote total being some 75,000 higher than in 2000, only 5,900 people voted for third parties in New Hampshire. Much less than 60% of Nader's 22,000 total in 2000. In 2008, the vote total grew by another 30,000 but the total for third parties left and right was only 9,810 less than 45% of Nader's total, well less than 60%.
I don't understand this seeming need to grasp for any straw, any excuse to avoid blaming an obvious culprit - Ralph Motherfucking Nader.
And the Supreme Court had nothing to do with New Hampshire. The Supreme Court had nothing to do with Iowa or Oregon or New Mexico or Wisconsin. Gore won all those states by a hair and Nader did every thing he could to also put those states into the Bush column.
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
Back in 2000, as much as I liked Gore, and I did, nothing was more important to me than keeping Bush out of the White House. As I said in my LTTE in October 2000 in Northern Iowa (counties which, btw, were responsible for about 70% of Gore's margin of victory in Iowa (hfojvt takes a bow here (to thunderous applause)) "Quite frankly, the prospect of a Bush Presidency scares me."
When Ralph Nader was asked, what if your candidacy helps elect George W. Bush, that arrogant moronic pusbag was quoted as saying "I don't care." Trillions in tax cuts to the rich, almost 10,000 dead American soldiers, many times that severely wounded, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and so on and so on, and that egotistical imbecile said "I don't care." How the hell does he wash the blood off his hands? Why the hell hasn't he spent every second of the last 12 years apologizing to the world?
Maybe that is where all the excuse making comes from. Like the kid who drives the car through the garage door, he and his voters do not want to face the consequences of their actions, and the easiest way to avoid that is to avoid taking the blame. Quick, blame your little brother, blame your older sister, blame the video game or the TV show. It's not my fault. It can't be.
thucythucy
(9,103 posts)at a town hall style forum.
A woman in the audience asked him if he worried about taking votes away from Gore.
The contempt with which he treated that question, and the questioner, spoke volumes.
As I recall, his response was something like, "Oh yeah. I stay up nights worrying about taking votes from Al Gore." It was like he was holding this woman up to the contempt of the entire audience. Rather than directly answer the question, he tried making her into a joke.
At that point I decided to cast my vote, not only FOR Al Gore, but also AGAINST Ralph Nader.
Nothing I've seen since from either man has made me rethink my vote. Al Gore remains perhaps the best president we never had. And Ralph Nader continues to be an arrogant self-absorbed jerk.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I am challenging the OP on their claim.
Setting that aside. I think more participation in democracy and more parties is always a good thing. I think the Supreme Court stepping in and ending the democratic process is always a bad thing.
We know that if the Supreme Court had not stopped the recount, Gore won. That is all that matters.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)because your claim that "Nader did not make a difference" is based on the claim, which you cannot prove, that "over 60% of Nader voters would not have voted for Gore". That is a much weaker claim than the idea that 34% of them would have.
I think helping to elect George W. Bush is always a bad thing, and I know that if Nader had not campaigned the way he did in 2000, that would not have happened.
No, the Supreme Court decision is not the only thing that matters. It matters to keep Bush out of the White House. That mattered a lot.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)responsibility for what they did in the 2000 election. The price that was paid is too high for them not to acknowledge that they made a honest mistake and regret not seeing potential drastic problems happening due to their vote.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)although I would still be kicking myself if I lived in New Hampshire and voted for Nader, but it is not like Gore lost New Hampshire by one vote. So my own blame would not be nearly as large as Nader's blame, or the blame of stupid writers like this idiot http://www.commondreams.org/views/110100-103.htm I mean, it is doubtful, but also possible that that dumb column could have convinced 8,000 otherwise sensible people in New Hampshire to vote for Nader instead of Gore. So David Yepsen and the editors of Common Dreams bear much more responsibility than any individual voter.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)as individuals. But, each Nader voter made a choice, a bad choice.
pnwmom
(110,259 posts)Are you going to also argue that he couldn't have gotten that many Nader votes?
When Nader elected to run the hardest in the swing states -- and that was a deliberate choice -- he accomplished exactly what he set out to do. He became a kingmaker, and Bush was the king.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)He exercised his right to run. Voters exercised their right to vote. Gore won in the legitimate democratic process. The Supreme Court usurped the will of the voters. FUCKING PERIOD.
The rest is Bush/SCOTUS apologia. THose who blame Nader legitimize Bush.
pnwmom
(110,259 posts)when the Rethugs are in power. So he deliberately tipped the election to Bush.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)pnwmom
(110,259 posts)it wouldn't have come close enough for a recount.
He deliberately ran knowing that he himself couldn't win, and that he would be helping George Bush. People questioned him about this when he decided to run, and he admitted that. His excuse was that Bush and Gore were the same -- Tweedledee and Tweedledum, according to him. So it didn't matter to Nader that his running would hurt Gore.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)democratic process and gave it to bush. That is the end of the story.
pnwmom
(110,259 posts)where he'd do the most damage. Nader was at the root of this, not the SCOTUS.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)They were all part of the legitimate democratic process. The Supreme Court usurped the democratic process. Had they not stopped the recount, Gore would be President. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand, even 13 years later.
Why are you trying to legitimize Bush's appointment? WHY?
pnwmom
(110,259 posts)The Supreme Court would never have gotten involved if Nader hadn't gotten 95,000 votes in Florida.
Why are you excusing Nader's effort to help Bush-- which even Nader acknowledged would happen? Why?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)my question is, are you going to argue that the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore properly? Do YOU think that was the right decision?
pnwmom
(110,259 posts)who cared about himself more than the causes he pretended to care about.
I think the SCOTUS decision was appalling. But they never would have had the opportunity were it not for Nader's 95,000 votes in Florida.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)The ruling is what stopped the recount. Gore won the popular vote and the electoral college via the democratic process. Only one entity stopped the democratic process. Not Nader, not Gore, but the Supreme Court, doing Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris' bidding.
pnwmom
(110,259 posts)than from Bush supporters. Those 12,500 extra voters would have made a huge difference.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)In the real world, the Supreme Court blocked the democratic process. It does not matter how it got the the SC, what matters is what they did.
By placing the blame on a legitimate third party candidate, you are putting Bush forth as a legitimate victor. If Bush had actually won the popular vote in FL, you may have a point in your blame of Nader. But, guess what? Gore received more votes in Florida than Bush! Did you know that. Gore actually won Florida, EVEN WITH NADER'S VOTES CONSIDERED.
Think on that a while. THe democratic process was working and would have worked, despite anything Nader did, until the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped it.
Live in the world of reality. Your would-of's, could-of's, historical fictions are meaningless. The Supreme Court stopped the democratic process. Gore was the victor. Those who say "made it close enough to steal" are suggesting the Supreme Court has a right to steal the election. FUCK THAT!
pnwmom
(110,259 posts)if Nader hadn't been in the race, and only 25% to Bush -- more than enough to change the outcome of the race.
The SCOTUS would have had nothing to do with the election if Nader hadn't run.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader
Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."[61] (which would net a 13%, 12,665 votes, advantage for Gore over Bush.)
morningfog
(18,115 posts)The process worked. Gore won the pop vote and electoral vote. The SC blocked it. That is all that matters for our democracy.
pnwmom
(110,259 posts)his efforts on the non-swing states. But he knew he would draw more votes from Gore and could possibly influence the election if he worked harder in the swing states -- and he delighted in that.
This was about serving hubris, not democracy.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)All of the blame rests with them, solely.
You are still trying to legitimize Bush's presidency. It makes me wonder. Shame.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Oh wait, someone already posted the picture of his shitstain VP choice.
Plus, Gore just plain sucked.
Have you written him a letter telling him he should have ran a better campaign or do you just come here to pound sand and make yourself think you accomplish anything?
TransitJohn
(6,937 posts)Thanks!
City Lights
(25,822 posts)
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)years before any primaries have begun. 
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)the question Ralph Nader fans or whomever is the Ralph Nader of 2016 needs to ask is-
Would you do the same exact thing again?
Would you vote on someone who cannot possibly get to 270, to depreive someone else from reaching 270?
So would you vote for the worst democratic candidate you could think of, or would you
vote for Jeb Bush? that is the important question.
More likely the choice shall be Jeb Bush or Rubio or Christie, the Democratic candidate or Ralph Nader.
Would you vote even knowning Jeb Bush might win?
And the Naderites should answer the following question-
if in the current time, Nader was an independent senator like say Angus King or Bernie Sanders and a 60th vote was needed for any issue-
who would Nader caucus with?
That is the question.
Bernie Sanders ALWAYS votes at that point with the Democratic party when a 60th vote is needed.
Would Ralph Nader be the 60th vote?
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and Al Franken would be the 60th vote.
Would Ralph Nader side with Harry Reid, or side with Mitch McConnell? That is the question
Comes a time when one has to stop being a child and become an adult and take responsiblity. IMHO. America is not Never-Never land.
And soon MORE Supreme Court nominations will have to be accomplished.
And because of things like Nader, do you honestly think that it will be easy in 2013 for President Obama to name a really liberal person to the court?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)If Bernie Sanders was running against Joe Lieberman in 2016, who would YOU vote for?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Bernie would NEVER run as a republican
I would follow the Presidential guidelines of Democratic Underground in their SOP
especially around election times. As I am sure everyone here would at that time.
You do know, Charlie Schumer and the Democratic Party fully backed (including much mega money) the senate run of Bernie, don't you?
Bernie, who went to the same school in Brooklyn my wife did, is a good friend of Charlie Schumer.
Question- would YOU vote for Charlie Schumer on a presidential ticket at any time?
Now, if Bernie Sanders was the Democratic nominee, of course I would vote for him.
I like the guy.
However, Bernie, like Dennis, like Elizabeth, like Al, like Angus, when push comes to shove and a 60th is needed in the senate, or a tiebreaker in the hous, Bernie votes WITH President Obama.
When push came to shove, Ralph Nader threw the election to the republicans, and he was too lazy IMHO to run for lower office and win, at which point, for little money, he actually would have had to work, HOWEVER, he might have actually accomplished something, but at which time,
at some point, he would have been the one vote needed yea or nay, which would he have voted for?
Life is too important to play court jester in a presidential election.
(of course Ralph couldn't have known his foolishness would lead to 9-11 and Iraq. After all,
it couldn't be possible Ralph knew that.Fool is the person that doesn't look ten steps ahead, like President Obama does and put together what COULD indeed happen)
I voted in the Presidential primaries twice for Jesse Jackson and twice for Jerry Brown(or was it three times).And once for Al Sharpton.
All in the democratic primaries.
I most certainly did NOT vote for Gary Hart, nor did I want him, and was quite happy when he took himself out of the running. I most certainly did NOT want John Edwards and screamed to no avail to his groupies about what he was.
(And in both instances I was 100% correct.) Thank God I didn't have to pull the lever on election day for either those two had they been the democratic nominee, though I would have had we been so unlucky, and of course, Edwards would have easily LOST in 2008.So happy nobody played his game.
Question-(you don't have to answer of course)
Would you have voted for LBJ in 1968 had he stuck in the race, knowing LBJ could beat Richard Nixon, and knowing what you know now.
LBJ is the dividing point. Between having the best and having the worst.
(not dreaming of better, but actually having the best, and getting the worst).
The public abandonment of LBJ is the key to the last 45 years now.
I for one did NOT abandon him. And I am proud of it.
I sure wish I could have voted in 1972 and 1976 for Bobby Kennedy.
being that that did not happen-
Being that Ted is my favorite, I sure wish he did not run in 1980, and did so in 1984 and 1988.
We could have had 53 years and counting of Democratic presidents.
If NOT for the fracture and division of the party itself, and the stupid protest votes that blew everything.
Question -
will you vote in 2016 for Hillary Rodham Clinton? I for one will avidly do so, something I did not want to do in 2008, and wholeheartedly want now. And it will be a positive vote, not an anti-someone else vote.
Tell the third party people to run for house or senate or governor, or assemblyperson, or mayor.Something they can win. And be part of the system from within.
To produce SOMETHING instead of nothing.
Not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016 will give the world Bush3.
It's as simple as that.
Wishing for better than Hillary if/when she is the one nominated, will give one the worst of the worst if one doesn't vote for her.
BTW, for all you know, had Ralph bowed out in Sept. of 2000, and ran for senator in 2000 somewhere, you never know, had he worked against the Bush's as Senator, maybe Barack Obama would have picked him for VP in 2008. And I would then have voted for him.
But he was too disingenious IMHO to want to actually achieve something.
For all we know, had Senator Nader been in office, Iraq could have been stopped.
But we will never know. That is the legacy of Ralph Nader, though he will in a number of years be completely forgotten about, relegated to the Alf Landon's or Los Del Rios of the world.
Who?
off topic side rant-to let you on a secret you might not know-
In the 60s, I was a big admirer of Mark Rudd and the others. This is NOT the 60s.
This is 2013.
And go to Mark Rudds website and see that he backed Barack Obama and basically said the way to do it is from within, not burning it down from without then having nothing standing.
And doing what was done in the 1960s is NOT applicable to 2013.
It is a whole new mindset, whole new NO-borders instead of borders.
And one forgets, the troops themselves were forgotten about in the midst of the protests of the 1960s. Now, the American troops and their lives are in the thought of people. So it becomes important to try to put the least harm in their way. Now it is voluntary and they made their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of freedom of choice to become part of the military.
And YES there are bad people out there who are looking to harm them.
One cannot do what was done in the 1960s. This is 2013.
And 9-11 indeed DID happen. Back in the 1960s, the continental 48 states in the USA never was attacked from the outside. In 2000 it was, and just about everyone was okay with Afghanastan, and going after OBL.
and Yes, one can like LBJ and Rudd at the same time.
Anyone can have the foreign issues and it would always be the same.
It took LBJ to do the social issues, which at the end of the day are vastly MORE important in the long term wellness of mankind. IMHO.
(edit to add-its time to go and excercise for my wellness, back in a couple of hours).
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)2015. Lieberman for the Dems and Bernie Sanders as an independent.
I assume you would vote for Lieberman, right? A simple yes or no will suffice.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I notice you forgot to answer all the quesitons.
I will vote for the democratic nominee for President. Wouldn't you?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I wouldn't hesitate for a minute to vote my conscience.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)So Sanders=Lieberman.
Just like Warren=Hillary=Obama
one for all and all for one
When the 60th vote is needed, all are on the same team
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)There IS such a thing as a greater evil.
Now, if Sanders could win and was poised to win if he got the vote of people like me, there would be no fucking way in hell that I would vote for Lieberman, my vote would be for Sanders and I would ask all my family members and their children to vote for Sanders, I would argue and fight for votes for Sanders. My clear-sightedness concerning imminent danger distinguishes me from Nader apologists.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)1968 showed everything that was wrong with the politics of protest.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I know the NRA hates Bloomberg, but that has nothing to do with this thread.
This thread is on 3rd party candidates.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)I'm merely reminding you that a certain right wing authoritarian Republican in New York endorsed the monster that was re-elected that year.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)sometimes a mayor has to do things the private person didn't.
Remember, NY was trying to get the money for the 9-11 families that were very slow in coming.
And it took another good time for the first responders to finally get aid.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Bloomberg, never ran 3rd party (and would have been a helleva spoiler in 2008 if he did
but he endorsed President Obama twice.
but cite your claim that he voted for anyone but Kerry in the voting booth.
BTW, Nancy Reagan voted for Barack Obama and not John McCain, you know that don't you?
but I can understand why the NRA hates Mike Bloomberg.
He gunned down 2 pro-NRA candidates out of 2.
And now he got Andrew to join in. Ain't it great.
And neither is running for president.
BTW, speaking of that Angus King is Senator and caucus with the democrats. Thanks to Bloomberg and the democratic party.
Will you vote for a ticket of Napolitano/Bloomberg is that is the DEMOCRATIC ticket in 2016?
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)boring. this is like when the NRA minutias what type of gun it is.
All guns are made to kill.
Let's work together to stamp out guns.
But that is another thread.
Please take the anti-bloomberg diatrabe to your own thread.
He had the decency to never run 3rd party.
BTW, would you vote for a Napolitano/Bloomberg democratic ticket?
If it has a democratic line, I would.
Would you then vote for the democratic candidates?
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)democratic hold on the White House with, if the current track continues, declining national debt and expanding personal freedoms. The question then become whether some voters will give us another nearly lost decade to pursue a pipe-dream that can't possibly come true?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Third party candidates happen, deal with it.
Your solution is unconstitutional, and undemocratic. Perhaps if the Democratic party would appeal to liberals a bit more, throw them a crumb once in a while, you wouldn't have to worry about folks like Nader.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Those that voted for Ralph Nader threw the election.
What I don't get is, why not just admit it and be proud of what those votes did?
I have never heard a Nader voter say they were proud of their vote.
Isn't that odd?
Why do they run around like pelicans with their heads in the sand all the time hiding what
they were ashamed of?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)You are assuming that I voted for Nader, I didn't. But unlike you, I recognize that people have the Constitutional right for people to vote for Nader, and if a candidate loses, it is the fault of that candidate, because ultimately, in the end, that candidate failed to attract those who wound up voting third party. That is how a democracy works, if you wanted to get elected, you have to attract the voters with your message. You are not entitled to the vote of any group or person based on their race, religion, or past voting record.
You on the other hand seem to have this entitlement attitude, that every Democrat deserves the vote of every single vote from anyone who ever voted for another Democratic candidate, get over it, they don't. They have to earn each vote every single time they run for office, they are entitled to nothing.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and if Janet Reno were running for VP with Hillary, she earned my vote too.
Eric Holder for SCOTUS earned my vote.
so you are correct, all those people EARNED my vote. And I would back them knowing all of those people are winners.
I would back any democrtic candidate and have backed plenty of losers, but wouldn't you want to win?
However, come November in a presidential the SOP of this board is 100% for the democratic candidate.
Not for someone financed by the rightwing like Nader and Paul were.
Sure, one has a right to vote for Nader, but then they lose the right to whine when those that financed Nader got seated(aka Bush/Cheney).
MadHound
(34,179 posts)And in my opinion, Holder simply isn't qualified for the SC.
Furthermore, I don't care about "winners" and "losers" that much, in fact I think that is one of the major problems with our political landscape, too much emphasis being put on a party "winning" or "losing" instead of focusing on those who really matter, we the people.
I guess I'm much more discriminating, for I won't, and haven't, vote for "any democratic candidate." I've seen far too many Democratic candidates who were just as bad, or worse, than their Republican counterparts.
As far as the "right to whine" goes, sorry, that's not based on one's voting record, that's simply part of the human condition, deal with it.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)You are arguing that Bush won legitimately because Nader ran. Tsk, tsk.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)have been spectators and Gore would have been our President for eight years. We would not have had 9/11, two wars and maybe not even Drones. We would not have had a pile of debt and be facing the real possibility that social programs will be cut deeply to help pay down that debt. The issue that I find so insulting about the Nader apologists is that they CLAIM to be the biggest progressives in the DU, but by their own hand, they have brought us unimaginably conservative policies and an unparalleled assault on the social safety net. Yet, the only game they have is to blame the 2000 Supreme Court, a court that acted only because the Nader apologists couldn't see a clear and present danger when they went to the polls on November 6, 2000.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)they can and did get involved because Nader voters were convinced they had the answers and created a mucky electoral result, even when it was fucking clear that Nader had a snow ball's chance in hell of winning.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)You need to refresh your memory of what happened.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)that counted all votes. You can continue to blame the Supreme Court, they made themselves convenient scapegoats. But at the end of the day, the 97,000 people that voted for Nader in Florida elected Bush. The OP pointed to Nader votes in New Hampshire, either way, whether it was via Florida or New Hampshire, people that voted for Nader elected Bush in 2000. Will the same BS play itself out in 2016?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Gore won, the SC gave it to bush. Please don't try to rewrite history in favor of bush.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)the country will be at the very same juncture that it was in 2000, with a phony republican Governor trying to pass himself off as a compassionate conservative and a democrat that not all of us are excited about, but who none the less, is a proven democrat.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)A Third Way, DLC corporatist would be more apt.
And again, candidates have to earn their votes. Just because Hillary is a Democrat, at least nominally, doesn't mean she is automatically entitled to the vote of every single person who is left of center, she has to earn them. If some third party candidate scoops up a few percentage points on the left, the fault is hers, not that third party candidate. She has to go out and stake positions that give people who are left, right and center something to vote FOR HER. If she doesn't do that, the onus is on her.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)The fact is Hillary is the best positioned candidate on the democratic side, we elect her than move forward toward a Kennedy or Castro within a decade. If the Nader type crowd get Christy or Rubio elected, we will have to fight for two decades just to get back to where we were once 2016 comes. The question is whether progressives will be pissing and moaning in 2030 about politicians that they made possible with their votes.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)The only difference between the two at this point is the speed with which we move. The direction however doesn't change.
Plus, can you really give your consent, your approval, your vote to somebody who voted for the Iraq war? I certainly can't. Then again, I tend to pay attention to my conscience.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)You are assuming that if Nader was not in the race, that all of his voters would automatically go to Gore. Some would, yes. But Nader was able to get some people out of their house and to the polls to vote that would have otherwise stayed home. A lot of Nader's voters were younger, independent and/or third party to begin with. A lot of these voters didn't really like either party.
There are lots of voters out there that do not buy into the lesser of two evils argument.
Hayabusa
(2,149 posts)I do about Nader splitting the vote. Although that certainly didn't help.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)can't understand what is so hard to understand that
Didn't help? New Hampshire gave gore 271.
Do people not realize that Gore finished just a few electoral votes away WITHOUT Florida.
All one needs is 270.
Gore would have had 271 with Florida.
Hayabusa
(2,149 posts)When it comes to everything that went wrong for Democrats in 2000, I find voter fraud, disenfranchisement and outright theft a hell of a lot more egregious than another liberal candidate splitting the vote.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)He got rich off the 2000 loss.(that was financed by the rightwing).
It was as if he was in on the fix from the start.
Either that or he is just stupid.
He knew and aided and abetted it.
Then denied it.
Reminds me of Ron Paul.
Had for decades racist literature
Ran for President and tried to deny it
Either he knew and agreed with it
or he didn't and was incompetent
And both Ron Paul and Ralph Nader got rich off the 99% who they took
and any new Green candidate or whatever 3rd party there is.
Hayabusa
(2,149 posts)
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Neither in 08 nor last year.
I couldn't do it then, I couldn't do it now.
Rather a Palin chosen by others than a Lieberman chosen by me.
I'm old enough to know that Bush won by exactly 5 votes, and they weren't electoral.
I know you will never get this - even though you are for everything - but people do actually disagree about this stuff. There's always more than one option when facing moral conundrums (that's what makes them conundrums, after all).
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)It's just a diversion.
and Gore needed 3. NH had 4.
and why find the need to make fun of someones name, without knowing why my name was that?
The name was for Bob Graham, uber liberal who should have been vice president or ANYTHING in 2000 and 2004, but wasn't picked, because the Edwards groupies got their way.
Is there something about uber Liberal Bob Graham you don't like?
and no, there is no disagreement.
Gore would have received 271 electoral votes with
This thread is about 3rd party runs, and how republican financed Ralph Nader threw the election of 2000 and people who promote the both party are the same meme are wrong,
as SCOTUS proves.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)I directed the lighthearted comment about your name because almost everytime I see you postimg something, it's beating this dead horse. It was not meant to be mean spirited. You'll just have to accept that some people disagree about this.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)If Bush and Gore were the same,
then Nader is/was happy with Bush
therefore, he would be happy with Jeb
You remember that Perot had a personal grudge against 41, but NOT against Bush's politics
as he backed Bush in 2000. Not Gore.
His right to back whomever he wants.
But then I didn't vote for him for President.
If he were the democratic nominee, I would vote for Nader.
And my name was for Bob Graham for anything after it was known he wouldn't be VP.
Never occured to me the double entendre in it, becuase i truly wanted him in the cabinet
(and they say he was promised a role, but the other person lost and it didn't happen.)
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)"at all" would have been enough for me. But that would have meant searching for VP's somewhere else as where he got Lieberman from.
That RATM music video said it all.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Apophis
(1,407 posts)would have voted for Bush? Or another third party candidate? Who's to say they would've voted for Gore?
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)So, if they had voted for Bush with Nader out of the race, then they would now either be liars or repentant fools.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)JI7
(93,614 posts)and considering what came off as hatred towards Gore from many of them i wouldn't be surprised if they would have voted for Bush .
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And you could point to some comments by Nader voters calling themselves the 'strongest possible progressives' on DU?
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)because both you and I know what would result from that.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Nader and know for a fact that Nader had zero to do with the theft of the 2000 election.
See, not everyone who disagrees with you voted for Nader. In fact most people who are aware of that treasonous crime did not vote for Nader, some never even heard of him back then.
You are very much in the minority, well at least among Democrats. Bush supporters of course do deny that the SC stole that election.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Paul was another who IS a republican and is financed by them and who kept getting reelected for whatever reason without Tom DeLay minding.(meaning DeLay was quite happy having Paul next district down)
I Cant Dance
(42 posts)Just imagine what the world would be like if people put as much effort into making it a better place as they do for blaming for Nader for everything.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)I Cant Dance
(42 posts)If some of you put as much effort in to help get Dems elected as you do blaming Nader, then Dems would never lose an election.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)The fact is that some democrats vote for republican Presidential candidates. But those people don't call themselves caring liberals. Anyone in the last category that voted for Nader cast a horrid vote.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)The candidate has to convince people to vote for him. If he fails to do so, it's his fault, not the voter's.
Gore ran as a centrist Democrat. A lot of Democrats aren't centrists and found another progressive candidate who appealed to them more.
That's what elections are about.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)You want to know who's fault it was? 13 years later you still need to assign blame even though it does absolutely nothing? Fine then lay the blame where it belongs like it does every election year. With the 90 million fucking people who don't bother to vote.
Or maybe blame the government who can't seem to make the most important day of the year for a "Democratic" nation, election day, a holiday.
On Independence Day we get the day off work, we have parades, BBQ's, fireworks, and parties. On Election day, the day we get to exercise the rights we won with our independence, no parades, no fireworks, no parties, we get to try and find time during a work day to go wait in line to determine the future of this nation and the world. It's absurd.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)aren't convinced that they know more about politics and social justice than anyone else.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Instead of admitting there is a problem, call it a distraction and complain some more about "Ralph Nader". Maybe if you whine about him for another 13 years something will actually happen. 
Your obsession with Nader does nothing for anyone, except maybe you and Ralphie.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Obama and/or the Dems in Congress do?
Why bother voting and campaigning and whatever?
Just tabulate the registrations.
BTW, I would blame voter turnout, if there was any point whatsoever in assigning or reiterating blame now.
Time to start looking at 2016 and trying to elect an actual Democrat.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)conservative. The fact is, President Obama and Congressional democrats are constrained by the damage and spending that Bush did. No Bush, not problem, we may have gotten a more liberal President in 2008 and re-elected that person in 2012. President Obama and Congressional democrats are making progress for Gay Rights, Women's Rights and pay equality and on reducing debt, despite historical republican obstructionism.
The issue is whether so called progressives will send us back to 2001 when they vote in November 2016. Or, will they have learned important lessons?
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)If you can claim that Gore wouldn't have gotten Nader votes and have no fucking way of proving you're right, why do you think you should be taken seriously when you demand that people making the opposite observation prove something that you can't prove.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)I said the assertion that he would have is unprovable.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Imagine President Lieberman in 2008.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)and Dick Cheney.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Nader basically ran on the premise that there was no difference between Democrats and Republicans.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)a difference, a seriously BIG difference between Gore and GW Bush. The country paid horribly over 8 years for that difference and is still paying. The Nader protectionists/revisionist fucking make me physically ill with their cluelessness, or disengeniousness.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It's hard to believe that such a sizable group of supposedly liberal/progressive folks agreed with him at the time.
judesedit
(4,592 posts)We cannot let it happen again. They are trying everything in their power to continue to destroy America the way we knew it. Help us Occupiers, Anonymous, whistleblowers, scientists, hackers, economists, and all sane people. Get out the vote to vote the lying, hypocritical, greedy, racist bastards OUT of office asap!
n2doc
(47,953 posts)
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)It's all about the "W".
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Doing Bush and the Conservatives bidding, whether you know it or not.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Unlike Nader apologists.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)at the feet of the five justices.
theKed
(1,235 posts)
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)If even 10% of them had gone out to vote for Gore, Nader and Florida wouldn't have mattered.
Those were your true disaffecteds, who not only saw no difference between the parties but no reason to even engage in the selection. They were left unconvinced.
I think asking what would convince them would help us to understand how to avoid another trainwreck like Dubya.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I attribute that to Nader saying so often that both parties are the same, that voters felt like it mattered little.
So you prove my point. Thanks!
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)3 million more than Clinton received in 1996. Bush's was the second highest for any Republican up to that time, second only to Reagan in 1984.
If Nader was trying to keep Democrats and Republicans at home, he did a poor job. You overinflate his importance, something which he needs no help doing.
The question is always how to get people to vote for you, not how to get them to vote against somebody else.
Marr
(20,317 posts)thetruthhurtsforsome
(33 posts)from the more liberal and progressive voters.
It is the party's choice to run whom they want and the voters right to vote for the person whom they see fit to run the country.
Jumpin Jack Fletch
(80 posts)Gore's campaign was, to put it mildly, not a juggernaut.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)candidate?
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Your ilk ask the same question over and over, to somehow disqualify the argument that Nader cost the country dearly. The people that say Nader cost the country can't prove that Nader voters would have voted differently had Nader been out of the race, but you can prove for one millisecond that having Nader out of the race wouldn't have changed the result.
The OP is looking ahead to 2016 when we will again have a vacant ticket. People that claim themselves to be big progressives have a choice, they can move forward or they can send the country back to 2001, only this time the outcome will be worse.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)and people had the right to vote for him. Nobody needs to apologize to you or anyone else for voting their conscience.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)I've been stunned this topic never seems to come up.