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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gothmog

(144,005 posts)
121. You are wrong
Mon May 22, 2017, 10:43 AM
May 2017

The SCOTUS could not even rule in this case if Nader had not screwed Gore. Here are some facts on this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes [nearly 200 times the size of Bush's Florida 'win']. In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 [three times the size of Bush's 'win' in that state]." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States -- even more indispensable, and more important to Bush's "electoral success," than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation's chief Ken Lay.

All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?" (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, "We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore." David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, "Nader to Crash Dems Party?" and he wrote: "In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore's loss." Nationwide, Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, "Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?" (also on the internet) presented "Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates," showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader's voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn't have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn't been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida's Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn't included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.

The SCOTUS would never had a chance if Nader had not been stupid
California chose Hillary by several million votes, has 2 Democratic Senators, pnwmom May 2017 #1
Maybe they looked at how well the party's doing outside of progressive California Plucketeer May 2017 #11
CA is showing no signs of sliding in that direction, thanks to party leadership. pnwmom May 2017 #12
+1000, PnwMom. Tossing out proven, successful leaders Hortensis May 2017 #54
Yeah for good sense Gothmog May 2017 #92
The Democratic Party in California is stronger than it was several years ago. No sliding going on. George II May 2017 #13
Umm, no. Not going to happen. paleotn May 2017 #16
Probably not Plucketeer May 2017 #26
The California Republican party as we know it is completely effete Sen. Walter Sobchak May 2017 #70
Oh, right. The Dems are only doing so well because the Rethugs pnwmom May 2017 #75
I don't believe I offered any critique of the leadership in California Sen. Walter Sobchak May 2017 #98
California GOP gave us Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Arnold ucrdem May 2017 #108
I will worry about the Republicans when they're credible in the assembly Sen. Walter Sobchak May 2017 #136
Tony Villar is good at getting elected. ucrdem May 2017 #137
It's going to be Gavin Newsom vs. Kevin Faulconer Sen. Walter Sobchak May 2017 #140
Hmm, that sounds like a tight race. I'd think Villaraigosa has a better chance ucrdem May 2017 #147
Los Angeles is not a microcosm of California, it's Los Angeles. Sen. Walter Sobchak May 2017 #148
This message was self-deleted by its author Midwestern Democrat May 2017 #110
Not even close nt joeybee12 May 2017 #114
Then maybe they need to spend their time on those outside of California who obviously need their politicaljunkie41910 May 2017 #142
Impudent peasants! n/t QC May 2017 #38
I think the notion that they need to push the California Democratic Party "left" is the MOAStrawmen. JTFrog May 2017 #73
I was also curious about this Gothmog May 2017 #91
Unspecified, meaning she's just unhappy she lost. RandySF May 2017 #2
" " " " n/t MBS May 2017 #10
That faction is always angry at the "establishment", even if the "establishment" is doing great. brush May 2017 #183
"If I lose, it means the election was rigged." DFW May 2017 #3
Yeah. Igel May 2017 #14
So 2000, 2004, 2016 weren't legitimate concerns? KPN May 2017 #18
I guess it depends on whose Ox is gored, eh? Hassin Bin Sober May 2017 #20
2000 was flagrant theft RandySF May 2017 #67
Nader gave us bush Gothmog May 2017 #93
No. The Supreme Court did. nt m-lekktor May 2017 #107
You are wrong Gothmog May 2017 #121
No joeybee12 May 2017 #115
Elected delegates can be overruled by non-elected delegates. killbotfactory May 2017 #157
Let them be angry. murielm99 May 2017 #4
As an example BumRushDaShow May 2017 #5
I agree with the first part -- let them be angry -- and your point about KPN May 2017 #27
I made it very clear that the use of the term 'Berniecrats' murielm99 May 2017 #131
And, not just that. GoCubsGo May 2017 #171
"Berniecrats" have a Facebook page -- it says founded in 2016. They call themselves R B Garr May 2017 #172
'them'? OrwellwasRight May 2017 #102
I don't know WTF you are talking about murielm99 May 2017 #109
Read what you wrote in the Reply title. OrwellwasRight May 2017 #120
No, dearie, let me break it down for you. murielm99 May 2017 #132
yes, you just made my point OrwellwasRight May 2017 #135
I did not label anyone a Berniecrat. murielm99 May 2017 #138
The offensive word is "them". OrwellwasRight May 2017 #141
ffs, they call themselves Berniecrats. They have a Facebook page and they call R B Garr May 2017 #144
FFS, Try reading the discussion. OrwellwasRight May 2017 #145
Wow, talk about not understanding. This kind of divisiveness because someone uses R B Garr May 2017 #146
"Them" OrwellwasRight May 2017 #149
lol, I didn't say it was a noun. Typing a third person pronoun about Berniecrats isn't R B Garr May 2017 #150
And I quote: OrwellwasRight May 2017 #151
Thanks for quoting that I didn't say "them" was a noun, lol R B Garr May 2017 #152
Perhaps you don't understand the language: OrwellwasRight May 2017 #154
This is hilarious how you've made this entire subthread about the word "them". R B Garr May 2017 #156
Hilarious? I find it frustrating OrwellwasRight May 2017 #158
Did you even read the article?? Apparently not. Again, you don't seem familiar R B Garr May 2017 #159
Did you even read my posts? OrwellwasRight May 2017 #160
The article title, "California Democratic chair race angers Berniecrats" R B Garr May 2017 #161
I know what the article was about. OrwellwasRight May 2017 #162
Hilarious! At least you've shown that this is about personal attacks. R B Garr May 2017 #164
Yes, the thread is about objecting to the personal attacks you made. OrwellwasRight May 2017 #165
The thread is actually about the posted article title, R B Garr May 2017 #166
Wow, again with the purposeful obtuseness. OrwellwasRight May 2017 #167
Nice try, but you're obviously being obtuse about the posted article by trying R B Garr May 2017 #168
No, I'm not. OrwellwasRight May 2017 #169
Using the word "them" isn't disrespectful, ffs. R B Garr May 2017 #170
Too bad I didn't post about the article. OrwellwasRight May 2017 #173
Lol, this from someone trying to pretend using R B Garr May 2017 #174
I'm not "pretending" OrwellwasRight May 2017 #175
This thread is days old now. R B Garr May 2017 #176
Yep, and you keep it alive OrwellwasRight May 2017 #177
Lol, you kicked it after several days. More R B Garr May 2017 #178
Nope, I just respond when people say ridiculous things. OrwellwasRight May 2017 #179
This thread is almost a week old. You kicked it R B Garr May 2017 #181
No, again, I just respond when people say ridiculous things. OrwellwasRight May 2017 #182
Thread title, "California Democratic chair race angers R B Garr May 2017 #191
In fact, OrwellwasRight May 2017 #180
God! Drop it already. Cali is blue because Dems worked hard over years to get it there. brush May 2017 #186
Who was even talking to you? OrwellwasRight May 2017 #187
It's a discussion board. Anyone can respond to you. brush May 2017 #188
Which would imply OrwellwasRight May 2017 #189
Have at it. brush May 2017 #190
Get one thing straight. Sanders supporters are not the only progressives. You don't own that term. brush May 2017 #184
I forgot where I said I owned that term. OrwellwasRight May 2017 #185
Bernie is Not a Democrat dlk May 2017 #6
What does Bernie's party affiliation have to do with anything? KPN May 2017 #19
Not to mention Kimberly Ellis was a Hillary supporter in the primary. Hassin Bin Sober May 2017 #25
You can Google a picture of Eric with his husband. R B Garr May 2017 #88
How many middle-aged openly gay guys do you know in leadership? pnwmom May 2017 #94
Maybe the intent is to alienate? QC May 2017 #39
Seems that way. But I'm sure it runs both ways. People are pretty passionate KPN May 2017 #118
+1 Thankyou LiberalLovinLug May 2017 #56
++++ Duppers May 2017 #163
Neither is Joe Lieberman. mwooldri May 2017 #23
And she was a Hillary supporter. Hassin Bin Sober May 2017 #30
Hmmm, "refused to concede"? "This race is not over"? Sounds way too familiar. George II May 2017 #7
Sadly, yes. NurseJackie May 2017 #9
"Insurgent challenger" Historic NY May 2017 #8
Good catch. Media loves to highlight division. KPN May 2017 #31
what were the vote results? Sunlei May 2017 #15
Kimberly Ellis lost by 62 votes out of 3000. That's not too close -- KPN May 2017 #24
Thank you. This division helps Republicans get elected. To bad the top 2 can't co-lead so our p Sunlei May 2017 #28
Maybe they will. Kimberly Ellis has apparently been a significant force in building a KPN May 2017 #35
IMO she isn't a "divider" and the democratic socialists aren't either. Sunlei May 2017 #41
Fully agree. KPN May 2017 #44
The story in the San Antonio Express-News lapucelle May 2017 #103
No kidding. KPN May 2017 #117
No kidding? lapucelle May 2017 #123
Yes. No kidding ... meaning I agree. KPN May 2017 #124
Bauman is not a Republican. He is an openly gay pro-union Democrat. R B Garr May 2017 #80
I know. Sunlei May 2017 #81
Oh, good lord! paleotn May 2017 #17
Bingo. kstewart33 May 2017 #21
How about we wait and see where this goes and the unspecified becomes KPN May 2017 #22
Whatever happened to "Hey, we lost...let's work harder to push our message" Docreed2003 May 2017 #29
How about, "woah that was a close win, we need to include their agenda or we've lost them" Sunlei May 2017 #47
That's not the simplistic message behind it, unfortunately. It's a very hostile R B Garr May 2017 #48
Its Republicans who who promote the "Maligning other Democrats" messages because it works for them. Sunlei May 2017 #58
How lame, but typical divisiveness. Insinuating that Democrats are not pure enough R B Garr May 2017 #59
But the Democratic Party DOES have an agenda that includes a spectrum ... Honeycombe8 May 2017 #68
In other words, a faction is whining because they got outvoted. geek tragedy May 2017 #32
This is just insane William769 May 2017 #33
Thank you, Bill -- YES!!! obamanut2012 May 2017 #112
also, this: geek tragedy May 2017 #34
Good idea -- minimize the influence of money in politics. KPN May 2017 #36
it's an issue, but not the only one. geek tragedy May 2017 #37
Right. She did. Re: not the only one, nobody is saying that - including Kimberly Ellis ... KPN May 2017 #40
That's not the simplistic message behind it, unfortunately. The message is much R B Garr May 2017 #43
"minimize the influence of money in politics -- Is that an issue for anyone here?" LiberalLovinLug May 2017 #62
Well put. Else You Are Mad May 2017 #79
Yes and no. KPN May 2017 #119
Thanks for responding LiberalLovinLug May 2017 #128
Really getting tired of whoever these Sanders' supporters are that when they lose still_one May 2017 #42
Exactly. The "message" is chaos driven and not based in reality. There is no reason R B Garr May 2017 #45
There was similar unhappiness expressed when Nancy Pelosi won the votes to be the still_one May 2017 #50
Exactly, and I forgot about those other two losses you mentioned when I calculated R B Garr May 2017 #60
We are on the same page on this R B, and 2018 isn't that far off, and that is critical still_one May 2017 #65
Awesome, still_one, I like that focus. R B Garr May 2017 #71
Why is it Sanders supporters' fault when this Hillary supporter refuses to concede and hires a... Hassin Bin Sober May 2017 #72
If you read my post I said whoever these Sanders supporters are. The article in the OP still_one May 2017 #89
Kimberly Ellis supported Hillary. n/t QC May 2017 #74
Bunch of sore losers joeybee12 May 2017 #116
This is now the 3rd consistent loss here. R B Garr May 2017 #46
Post removed Post removed May 2017 #49
Well, bobs will be bobs... revmclaren May 2017 #51
Did you say Bob? And now....here...he....is!!!! Honeycombe8 May 2017 #64
Post removed Post removed May 2017 #52
Bingo... revmclaren May 2017 #53
Sanders isn't even a Democrat demosincebirth May 2017 #55
Kimberly Ellis is a Democrat who supported Hillary. n/t QC May 2017 #76
So? demosincebirth May 2017 #99
So what does this have to do with Bernie and his party membership? n/t QC May 2017 #100
So, you backed someone who is not a democrat? demosincebirth May 2017 #101
I voted for Sen. Sanders in the Democratic primary in Florida. QC May 2017 #105
LA Times: 4139 May 2017 #57
Wow, this is just sad now. R B Garr May 2017 #61
Nina Turner tammywammy May 2017 #66
nina turner needs to open her eyes and ears.. her spouting Cha May 2017 #82
That's crazy. Another display of vanity and ego. I can't stand her. NurseJackie May 2017 #84
A big Display of showing just how damn dumb she is.. Cha May 2017 #86
I was happy at the National Convention when Turner was blocked Gothmog May 2017 #90
Yay.. Mahalo for the reminder.. nina turner was NOT Cha May 2017 #97
Based on what we've seen SINCE the convention... NurseJackie May 2017 #111
I agree Gothmog May 2017 #122
I didn't read down far enough. Nina Turner is has obviously embraced the Jill Stein, Cornell West still_one May 2017 #106
I see the usual suspects promoting their "unity" message here. That Guy 888 May 2017 #63
No one is making anyone do anything. RandySF May 2017 #69
I see the usual suspect accusing others of what Cha May 2017 #83
I do also. Sad. NurseJackie May 2017 #87
Beyond sad.. Cha May 2017 #96
Yeah Gothmog May 2017 #77
It took a lot of liberal effort tirebiter May 2017 #78
Oh this one is a real tough guy.. all he has are threats. Cha May 2017 #85
They do love playacting the role of strongman extortionist.... Blue_Tires May 2017 #127
Ain't that the Cha May 2017 #130
Bryan Hash, murielm99 May 2017 #95
This message was self-deleted by its author liberal N proud May 2017 #104
Why do Berners insist on fucking around with Blue_Tires May 2017 #113
Now THAT... is an excellent question. I often suspect that it's motivated by vanity and ego... NurseJackie May 2017 #125
Or, maybe it's just more "active measures." GoCubsGo May 2017 #134
You are very wise and observant. NurseJackie May 2017 #139
Because they want to cause chaos for the Dems in strongholds nini May 2017 #143
I'm all for change in the party, and more often than not in the direction Bernie wants us to move... vi5 May 2017 #126
Let the Ratf***ing commence... haele May 2017 #129
It was a close race but they need to move on. hrmjustin May 2017 #133
Get back to me when Sanders decides to be a Democrat apcalc May 2017 #153
If Bernie wants to direct the Democratic Party wryter2000 May 2017 #155
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»California Democratic cha...»Reply #121