Ms. Sarandon, self-righteous liberals, Hillary Haters, all the rest, SEE what's happening TODAY?

[druidity33]

105. So a 2 Party system for you then...

because expecting there not to be a 3rd party candidate siphoning votes from one side or another is the way it's been since, i don't know, forever... despite your disagreement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections#1992_presidential_election

As for your "legacy Dems" comment, yes i accounted for them... but your suggestion that all 300,000+ registered Democrats who voted for Bush were "legacy Dems" i think demands a link in order for me to believe it.

"Polling data was compiled on Nader voters, and while about half said they would not have voted were he not on the ballot, the other half broke decisively for Gore against Bush." So? Did this polling data (how many people were polled, what was the margin of error?) tell us whether these voters were NPAs or Democrats or Republicans or Constitution Party, etc affiliation? Why would you have EXPECTED the Nader voters to vote for Gore? Why are you blaming Nader voters when you could be blaming the nearly 40% of registered voters who DIDN'T VOTE in FL in the 2000 election (around 4 million voters btw)? Did you know there were 7 other candidates on the ballot that year? The total of those votes (which btw did not go to Gore either) was roughly 39,000. Why not blame those voters? You could even single out the Socialist candidate who got 622 votes. Would Gore have lost Florida if David McReynolds wasn't on the ballot? The whole premise is bullshit. It's a What-If novel.


I'll call out the 'Nader voters screwed us' argument whenever i see it. And it galls me that you tacitly accept "skullduggery" by
election managers as "normal and expected".