Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why is it *my* #%^*ing fault? [View all]Gothmog
(181,602 posts)229. I disagree
I do not think relying on polling data and facts is simplistic or erroneous. I am using the same type of causation standard that is used in the real or legal world, i.e., but for causation. But for Nader's desire to punish the Democratic Party for his own ends, we would not have seen bush being elected, the Iraq war or the Citizen's United.
I note that you do not want to discuss the fact that Karl Rove and the GOP was funding Nader. From the article posted above:
On July 9th, the San Francisco Chronicle headlined "GOP Doners Funding Nader: Bush Supporters Give Independent's Bid a Financial Lift," and reported that the Nader campaign "has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party," according to "an analysis of federal records." Perhaps these contributors were Ambassador Egan's other friends. Mr. Egan's wife was now listed among the Nader contributors. Another listed was "Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year." Furthermore, Ari Berman reported 7 October 2004 at the Nation, under "Swift Boat Veterans for Nader," that some major right-wing funders of a Republican smear campaign against Senator John Kerry's Vietnam service contributed also $13,500 to the Nader campaign, and that "the Republican Party of Michigan gathered ninety percent of Nader's signatures in their state" (90%!) to place Nader on the ballot so Bush could win that swing state's 17 electoral votes. Clearly, the word had gone out to Bush's big contributors: Help Ralphie boy! In fact, on 15 September 2005, John DiStaso of the Manchester Union-Leader, reported that, "A year ago, as the Presidential general election campaign raged in battleground state New Hampshire, consumer advocate Ralph Nader found his way onto the ballot, with the help of veteran Republican strategist David Carney and the Carney-owned Norway Hill Associates consulting firm."...
Indeed, the Bush strategists would need to have been stupid not to have thought this idea up, especially because the Republican Party has routinely funded, and otherwise helped, in Democratic primaries, the weak political candidate to win the Democratic nomination, in order to enhance the chances for the Republican candidate to beat his ultimate Democratic opponent. This has been one of the Republican Party's most effective tactics.
Liberal suckers might not have known that Nader was working for the Republicans, but the Republican Party's leadership certainly did - and they acted accordingly. The only people who didn't were Nader's own voters.
Most of Nader's funding came from the GOP. The GOP knew that Nader would hurt Gore and help Bush. The GOP big donors are smart and know how to get the most for their money. In this case, they knew that funding Nader was a great investment because they knew that Nader would hurt Al Gore. This is exactly what happened.
We can agree to disagree but I really do believe that Nader's arrogance and stupidity gave us Citizens United and was responsible for the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. I have a party meeting tomorrow night and then I have to continue planning to see if I can organize a voter id clinic in my county to try to undo some of the damage inflicted by Nader.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
260 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The "Ralph Nader! Ralph Nader!" parrots never seem to remember that Bushco cheated
winter is coming
Mar 2014
#2
The Nader loyalists never seem to remember that an event can have more than one cause.
Jim Lane
Mar 2014
#71
I'm not defending Nader against his detractors. I've always thought he was a blowhard.
winter is coming
Mar 2014
#95
Actually, a lot of people on DU vilify Nader as if that were the only thing.
winter is coming
Mar 2014
#117
Exactly, so Nader never was a factor, was he, as you pointed out. We lost that election also.
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#220
Gore DID win. And had it not been for the SC traitors, he would have taken his rightful
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#257
The SC stole the 2000 election, and yet, there are those who defend the SC felonious
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#207
Actually, you don't know that. It's possible that Nader would have been a factor, but not certain.
winter is coming
Mar 2014
#112
Which begs the question of why so many voters made "the wrong choice".
winter is coming
Mar 2014
#118
"Stole" is a word I've actually heard people use, even if you haven't.
winter is coming
Mar 2014
#133
... or people realized between 2000 and 2004 just how much Bush sucked, or they
winter is coming
Mar 2014
#130
Yes he did. But would it have been possible without Nader? I don't think so. NT
Adrahil
Mar 2014
#131
Then there's the voter purges in Florida done by Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris
deutsey
Mar 2014
#137
The polling at the time showed that Nader took 2 to 5 times the number of votes from Gore vs Bush
Gothmog
Mar 2014
#194
I read the article. Like Cook, you're ignoring the fact that we lost far more votes to Bush
winter is coming
Mar 2014
#208
And a *fraction* of the votes lost to Bush would have also elected Gore.
winter is coming
Mar 2014
#216
The votes lost to Nader are the votes that could be documented and accounted for
Gothmog
Mar 2014
#219
The SCOTUS only had the opportunity to rule in Bush v. Gore due to bush's lead
Gothmog
Mar 2014
#240
That speaks to Nader's motives. It still doesn't make him the sole villain.
winter is coming
Mar 2014
#226
there was a major civil rights issue also, which never seems to garner much concern
G_j
Mar 2014
#156
I agree that we need to work on 2014, but my democratic congressman has a very, very secure
JDPriestly
Mar 2014
#52
Getting the teabaggers out is primarily the job of Democrats living in the teabaggers' districts.
JDPriestly
Mar 2014
#60
My goal is to vote for someone who seems to represent my interests. Screw the "lesser of two evils",
GoneFishin
Mar 2014
#5
Got that right. If the party wants to win it better put up a populist candidate because I'm done
Ed Suspicious
Mar 2014
#13
So, you will feel sufficiently represented by a contributor on MSNBC?
Sen. Walter Sobchak
Mar 2014
#33
I'm always entertained by the paradoxically elastic size of "the left".
winter is coming
Mar 2014
#15
Are you FUCKING series???? Neither "Bernie nor Elizabeth" EVER FUCKING ran against
madinmaryland
Mar 2014
#16
One thing is true, who ever wins the Democratic nomination, will run against the rethug. If Bernie,
lostincalifornia
Mar 2014
#57
Can you explain if the Third Way really want Republicans to win? They offer nothing that the Republ
rhett o rick
Mar 2014
#32
In Florida 24,000 Democrats voted for Nader, 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush.
pragmatic_dem
Mar 2014
#35
So you believe that a political monopoly is best for all, unlike corporate monopolies? I don't...
pragmatic_dem
Mar 2014
#56
Bush, won twice. Is that Nader's fault? Democratic leadership is responsible. It's their job.
pragmatic_dem
Mar 2014
#68
But 300,000 Democrats in Florida voted for Bush, not Nader. Why not blame them? Or Dem leadeship or
pragmatic_dem
Mar 2014
#79
And you seem to be deflecting blame for failure away from Democratic leadership
pragmatic_dem
Mar 2014
#86
Clinton left office with the highest approval ratings of any president in years.
Beacool
Mar 2014
#191
Clinton's approval was so high, 300,000 FL democrats voted for Bush. That's why Gore lost. Blame
pragmatic_dem
Mar 2014
#244
Possible - PMRC was a cluster-fk, unwelcome invasion of hard right wing into democratic party
pragmatic_dem
Mar 2014
#245
The people who feel disenfranchised by their own party don't seem to feel that
winter is coming
Mar 2014
#190
I don't know what to tell them. They can't see the results? What's happened to this country?
kcr
Mar 2014
#192
Agree +1 for standing up for traditional Democratic values and not this watered
pragmatic_dem
Mar 2014
#249
I assure you the self-proclaimed liberal who didn't vote for anyone did FAR
pragmatic_dem
Mar 2014
#248
WWP supports the North Korean Govt, Gore would have lost badly nationally if he tried
JI7
Mar 2014
#58
right, however, you can blame them just as much as Nader, but not as much as Democrats themselves...
pragmatic_dem
Mar 2014
#73
Dems who voted for Bush wanted someone right wing, just like WWP wanted someone who supports North
JI7
Mar 2014
#75
Nader is stiff and wooden, Gore has a sense of humor and is very affectionate with people
JI7
Mar 2014
#97
it was the right wing that kept going on about Gore being stiff and wooden and you are
JI7
Mar 2014
#104
no, Gore always had a sense of Humor, it was the right wing and media whores who kept
JI7
Mar 2014
#107
I saw the 2000 debates. He didn't comes across as personable and relaxed, which was a shame. n/t
winter is coming
Mar 2014
#114
he beat Bush in the debate so the media and right wing started going on about how mean he was
JI7
Mar 2014
#116
If Gore only sang "If I only had a brain" over & over, I wouldn't have voted for him
pragmatic_dem
Mar 2014
#254
That's a very conservative view you have. Having a committee decide what is safe
pragmatic_dem
Mar 2014
#90
certainly the ratings today favor violence over sex, and pmrc was a commitee
pragmatic_dem
Mar 2014
#110
So you admit Tipper was an asshole for fighting on an unimportant issue too?
Fumesucker
Mar 2014
#170
KCR, you're assuming that all 2000 voters were as well-informed as you are.
beerandjesus
Mar 2014
#258
Because if the Third Way loses they have to look for a job in the economy they created by policy.
jtuck004
Mar 2014
#42
That is about how I read it. If some people could stake themselves to a cross, they would. nt
bluestate10
Mar 2014
#218
There is a primary process, as much as some people may wish for an automatic coronation.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2014
#66
If the Democratic Party wants the votes of the left, it has to run leftist candidates.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2014
#70
By that logic, if they want the votes of centrist voters they should run centrist candidates...
brooklynite
Mar 2014
#135
as we can see from the responses ("participating in democracy just sabotages it!" "I don't CARE
MisterP
Mar 2014
#74
Everyone knows a monopoly of power best serves the majority of citizens, just ask China
pragmatic_dem
Mar 2014
#138
While I disagree with you on Hillary I think you should say how you feel on Warren and
hrmjustin
Mar 2014
#92
McGovern and Mondale ran against incumbents. Not really surprising they lost.
winter is coming
Mar 2014
#120
Dukakis was leading until that debate question on death penalty, and Clinton ran against an
JI7
Mar 2014
#121
Clinton ran against someone who had broken his "no new taxes" promise.
winter is coming
Mar 2014
#122
I have yet to discover what's pragmatic about continually favoring corporations over people.
winter is coming
Mar 2014
#183
Indeed. But what we want to be true will only happen if we take steps to make it so.
Maedhros
Mar 2014
#149
Wow MannyGoldstein you sure know how to bring the “neo” out of the liberals.
fleabiscuit
Mar 2014
#237