poll analysis of floridas 2000 election results

El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
edited May 2008 in A Moving Train
http://www.prorev.com/green2000.htm

-20% of all Democratic voters, 12% of all self- identified liberal voters, 39% of all women voters, 44% of all seniors, one-third of all voters earning under $20,000 per year and 42% of those earning $20-30,000 annually, and 31% of all voting union members cast their ballots for Bush.

-Nine million Democrats voted for Bush, and less than half of the 3 million Nader voters were Democrats. More than 200,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for George Bush and over half of the registered Democrats there did not vote at all

- According to exit polling, those who voted for Nader were disproportionately under 30, independent, first time voters, formerly Perot voters, and of no organized religion. In other words, many of his voters did not naturally belong to the Democratic party. In fact, half as many Republicans as Democrats voted for Nader. 6% of independents and 7% of Perot voters supported Nader while only 2% of Democrats did.

-According to exit polls, over half of the Nader voters would have stayed home, 25% would have voted for Gore, and 15% would have voted for Bush. The rest would have voted for another third party candidate.

-CNN's exit poll showed Bush at 49 percent and Gore at 47 percent, with 2 percent not voting in a hypothetical Nader-less Florida race.

-In the highly Democratic county of Palm Beach, an abnormally large number of votes were cast for the conservative candidate Pat Buchanan. Buchanan himself estimated that as many as 95% of these 3,500 votes were Gore's because of the faulty "butterfly" ballot.

-68% of voters thought Clinton would go down in history more for his scandals than for his leadership. 44% said that the scandals were somewhat to very important and 57% thought the country to be on the wrong moral track.

-During the Clinton administration, Democrats lost over 1,200 state legislative seats. Further, the Democrats lost control of 9 legislatures and for the first time since 1954 the GOP controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats. In addition, the GOP won 45 seats in the House, 7 in the Senate, 11 governorships and 439 Democratic officeholders switched to the Democratic Party. Only three Republicans went the other way.




also of interest:


http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2000&fips=12&f=1&off=0&elect=0&minper=0

Florida 2000 election results

George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 2,912,790 48.85%
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 2,912,253 48.84%
Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 97,488 1.63%
Patrick Buchanan Ezola Foster Reform 17,484 0.29%
Harry Browne Art Olivier Libertarian 16,415 0.28%
John Hagelin A. Nat. Goldhaber Natural Law 2,281 0.04%
Monica Moorehead Gloria La Riva World Workers 1,804 0.03%
Howard Phillips J. Curtis Frazier Constitution 1,371 0.02%
David McReynolds Mary Cal Hollis Socialist 622 0.01%
James Harris Margaret Trowe Soc. Workers 562 0.01%
Write-ins - - 40 0.00%
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    almost as if people who say Nader cost him the election.. are not only misinformed... but fucking stupid.
  • flywallyflyflywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    Final proof that Nader is irrelevant. No wonder Obama didnt want to meet with him !! My neighbor wants to meet with Obama -- maybe he should run for president as well.
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    another "whoa as me" ralph nader thread...


    dude, nobody gives a shit about nader. whats with all the paranoia?
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    Final proof that Nader is irrelevant.

    i actualyl laughed at that one...


    but really, no one is irrelevant. not even consumer activist inside traders that rail against wall street then goes home and heavily invest in wall street and the same exact corporations he rails against ;)
  • flywallyflyflywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    my2hands wrote:
    i actualyl laughed at that one...


    but really, no one is irrelevant. not even consumer activist inside traders that rail against wall street then goes home and heavily invest in wall street and the same exact corporations he rails against ;)

    It just strikes me as odd that Nader was apparently irrelevant (according to kabong's research above) in the 2000 election results, same in 2004, yet he jumps into this election because the Democrats wont sit down with him and take his issues as his. Kinda like a kid at the playground taking his ball and going home because the other kids wont let him be quarterback. If he was such a nonfactor then why did he think Obama would go with the "Nader agenda" ??
  • It just strikes me as odd that Nader was apparently irrelevant (according to kabong's research above) in the 2000 election results, same in 2004, yet he jumps into this election because the Democrats wont sit down with him and take his issues as his. Kinda like a kid at the playground taking his ball and going home because the other kids wont let him be quarterback. If he was such a nonfactor then why did he think Obama would go with the "Nader agenda" ??

    Because for one Obama claims to be all about the same issues. And two, many of us won't be voting for Obama based on the fact that he doesn't take on these important issues and that he panders to special interests.

    You know it's bullshit to say the Dems aren't worried about losing votes to Nader. That was more than apparent in the quotes they put out when he announced.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    my2hands wrote:
    i actualyl laughed at that one...


    but really, no one is irrelevant. not even consumer activist inside traders that rail against wall street then goes home and heavily invest in wall street and the same exact corporations he rails against ;)


    heavily invests in or has some mutual funds?

    let me know when one of you obama supporters can actually say WHY you support obama, other than, according to you who parrots the medias line of, he's the only realistic option

    i think it's funny you say things like above yet you are dead silent to all the lies obama says about lobbyists and taking their money and influence
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    my2hands wrote:
    another "whoa as me" ralph nader thread...


    dude, nobody gives a shit about nader. whats with all the paranoia?


    oh, you don't see ppl here saying nader lost the election for gore?

    how is posting poll results paranoia?

    if nobody gives a shit why reply?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    Final proof that Nader is irrelevant. No wonder Obama didnt want to meet with him !! My neighbor wants to meet with Obama -- maybe he should run for president as well.


    i dunno, what's your neighbor done?

    it seems the only qualifications you need is to have written a book or 2 about yourself be elected senator unopposed then miss 40.3% of the votes
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    El_Kabong wrote:
    heavily invests in or has some mutual funds?

    let me know when one of you obama supporters can actually say WHY you support obama, other than, according to you who parrots the medias line of, he's the only realistic option

    i think it's funny you say things like above yet you are dead silent to all the lies obama says about lobbyists and taking their money and influence

    can you do me a favor and point me in the direction showing where he officially takes money from lobbyists...

    I know employees of some large companies, including oil companies, have donated to his efforts, but I haven't seen much in way of official lobbyists...

    as for my reasons for supporting Obama...and please note, I've shared this before, but my reasons have been discounted...my reason for supporting him is this: He presents to me as someone who can work in the middle...the man can speak clearly and with purpose...he has gained the support of a very diverse group of supporters, not just anti-corporation folks, or just uneducated working white folks, but of young, old, men, women, and all races...of which I saw for myself at a rally here in town...while he is painted as a divisive leader by his opponents, I just disagree...hillary and mccain, on the other hand, are divisive figures...whether you may like to hear this or not, Nader can be seen as divisive person...

    I personally don't think this is what we need right now...

    and do I support each and every thing he stands for...nope...try and show me a candidate with no flaws...
  • flywallyflyflywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    El_Kabong wrote:
    i dunno, what's your neighbor done?

    it seems the only qualifications you need is to have written a book or 2 about yourself be elected senator unopposed then miss 40.3% of the votes

    He works for a non profit. He has some great views on problems this country faces but really no solution as to how he would fix them or how to apply action with a hostile congress stacked against him for being an "outsider" in the Whitehouse. He gets angry sometimes when people tell him no, much like a child.

    He has no political experience. This is good except in his experience he works more against something than working for something with others.

    So I guess he's qualified.
  • NOCODE#1NOCODE#1 Posts: 1,477
    El_Kabong wrote:
    heavily invests in or has some mutual funds?

    let me know when one of you obama supporters can actually say WHY you support obama, other than, according to you who parrots the medias line of, he's the only realistic option

    i think it's funny you say things like above yet you are dead silent to all the lies obama says about lobbyists and taking their money and influence
    kabong i know you've made this "i hate obama thing" your last years work but, the facts are he doesnt pander to special interests. he doesnt ask them for money. now some people who donate may be lobbyists or have special interests, but it doesn't control his campaign.
    Let's not be negative now. Thumper has spoken
  • NOCODE#1NOCODE#1 Posts: 1,477
    inmytree wrote:
    can you do me a favor and point me in the direction showing where he officially takes money from lobbyists...

    I know employees of some large companies, including oil companies, have donated to his efforts, but I haven't seen much in way of official lobbyists...

    as for my reasons for supporting Obama...and please note, I've shared this before, but my reasons have been discounted...my reason for supporting him is this: He presents to me as someone who can work in the middle...the man can speak clearly and with purpose...he has gained the support of a very diverse group of supporters, not just anti-corporation folks, or just uneducated working white folks, but of young, old, men, women, and all races...of which I saw for myself at a rally here in town...while he is painted as a divisive leader by his opponents, I just disagree...hillary and mccain, on the other hand, are divisive figures...whether you may like to hear this or not, Nader can be seen as divisive person...

    I personally don't think this is what we need right now...

    and do I support each and every thing he stands for...nope...try and show me a candidate with no flaws...
    you can't reason with kabong. he's set on discrediting a black man *gasp* that might be president. its in his blood.
    Let's not be negative now. Thumper has spoken
  • NOCODE#1 wrote:
    you can't reason with kabong. he's set on discrediting a black man *gasp* that might be president. its in his blood.


    Why does it matter that Obama's black? :confused:
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • NOCODE#1 wrote:
    kabong i know you've made this "i hate obama thing" your last years work but, the facts are he doesnt pander to special interests. he doesnt ask them for money. now some people who donate may be lobbyists or have special interests, but it doesn't control his campaign.


    http://beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5413#more
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • flywallyflyflywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    Why does it matter that Obama's black? :confused:

    I agree. Kabong may dislike Obama but it has nothing to do with his skin color, I have no doubt about that.
  • It just strikes me as odd that Nader was apparently irrelevant (according to kabong's research above) in the 2000 election results, same in 2004, yet he jumps into this election because the Democrats wont sit down with him and take his issues as his. Kinda like a kid at the playground taking his ball and going home because the other kids wont let him be quarterback. If he was such a nonfactor then why did he think Obama would go with the "Nader agenda" ??


    So irrelevant that that DNC fought to keep him, specifically, off the ballot and barred him from even being allowed on the premises of the presidential debate (in which he had a ticket for)

    Your argument is weak. You neednt look any further than the reactions given by both Clinton and Obama when Nader annouced this year to know he is considered relevant. It's just plain stupid to keep saying he cost Gore the election, though. Frankly, imo, even if he would have been the sole reason Gore didn't get enough votes to win, that's no one's fault but Gore's alone. This isn't some 2 party dictatorship where either the Dems or Reps are owed our votes....they have to be earned..... in my case, at least.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    inmytree wrote:
    can you do me a favor and point me in the direction showing where he officially takes money from lobbyists...

    I know employees of some large companies, including oil companies, have donated to his efforts, but I haven't seen much in way of official lobbyists...

    as for my reasons for supporting Obama...and please note, I've shared this before, but my reasons have been discounted...my reason for supporting him is this: He presents to me as someone who can work in the middle...the man can speak clearly and with purpose...he has gained the support of a very diverse group of supporters, not just anti-corporation folks, or just uneducated working white folks, but of young, old, men, women, and all races...of which I saw for myself at a rally here in town...while he is painted as a divisive leader by his opponents, I just disagree...hillary and mccain, on the other hand, are divisive figures...whether you may like to hear this or not, Nader can be seen as divisive person...

    I personally don't think this is what we need right now...

    and do I support each and every thing he stands for...nope...try and show me a candidate with no flaws...



    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/Campaign_Financing
    Barack Obama/Campaign Financing




    http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_lobbyist_line.php
    Obama’s Lobbyist Line
    A “more complicated truth” on campaign contributions



    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_N.htm
    Obama tied to lobbyists, but boasts of not taking money

    'WASHINGTON — Barack Obama often boasts he is "the only candidate who isn't taking a dime from Washington lobbyists," yet his fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.

    Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator's presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama's campaign $2.26 million, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign finance data shows.

    TESTING THE LIMITS: Obama's claim of independence questioned
    OBAMA FUNDRAISERS: Which lawyers bundle money?

    Thirty-one of the 38 are law firm partners, who typically receive a share of their firm's lobbying fees. At least six of them have some managerial authority over lobbyists.

    "It makes no difference whether the person is a registered lobbyist or the partner of a registered lobbyist, if the person is raising money to get access or curry favor," said Michael Malbin, director of the Campaign Finance Institute, a non-partisan think tank.



    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/
    In Illinois, Obama dealt with lobbyists



    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/
    PACs and lobbyists aided Obama's rise
    Data contrast with his theme



    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-crawford/obamas-lobbyist-fib_b_95399.html
    Obama's Lobbyist Fib



    http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/despite-rhetori.html
    Despite Rhetoric, Obama Pushed Lobbyists' Interests
    Away from the bright lights and high-minded rhetoric of the campaign trail, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has quietly worked with corporate lobbyists to help pass breaks worth $12 million...



    http://www.alternet.org/election08/77492/
    Obama's Line on Lobbyists Is Misleading



    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html
    Obama's Oil Spill
    March 31, 2008
    Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick.




    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7411.html
    Obama tweaks lobbyist pledge



    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-lobbying_bdfeb10,0,7215849.story
    Obama anti-lobbyist stand isn't without blurry edges



    and wasn't his campaign finance chair on the board and ran banks involved in predatory lending?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • flywallyflyflywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    So irrelevant that that DNC fought to keep him, specifically, off the ballot and barred him from even being allowed on the premises of the presidential debate (in which he had a ticket for)

    Your argument is weak. You neednt look any further than the reactions given by both Clinton and Obama when Nader annouced this year to know he is considered relevant. It's just plain stupid to keep saying he cost Gore the election, though. Frankly, imo, even if he would have been the sole reason Gore didn't get enough votes to win, that's no one's fault but Gore's alone. This isn't some 2 party dictatorship where either the Dems or Reps are owed our votes....they have to be earned..... in my case, at least.

    My argument is weak? I was just backing up what kabong posted. i dont believe his paltry vote numbers cost the Democrats Florida -- that makes him irrelevant in that election -- so you have a diagreement with your own argument evidently.

    Nader will have no relevance to the outcome of the 2008 election. He may be relevant to you and your vote but not to this election.
  • Danny BoyDanny Boy Posts: 161
    Nader won't be altering anything this year in terms of outcomes.

    I find it interesting that Vedder backed Nader wholeheartedly in 2000 yet supports Obama this year. Not that who Ed or any celebrity likes means much of anything, but considering we are in a Pearl Jam forum...
    Trading magic for fact, no tradebacks... So this is what it's like to be an adult...
  • Eliot RosewaterEliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    NOCODE#1 wrote:
    you can't reason with kabong. he's set on discrediting a black man *gasp* that might be president. its in his blood.
    What a bullshit post. Is that seriously the best you can do? Sad.
  • Eliot RosewaterEliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    Danny Boy wrote:
    I find it interesting that Vedder backed Nader wholeheartedly in 2000 yet supports Obama this year. Not that who Ed or any celebrity likes means much of anything, but considering we are in a Pearl Jam forum...
    I find it upsetting. I doubt Ed has changed his political stances on the issues but more likely has given in to the bullshit and nonsensical idea of an "electable candidate".

    Do we really think that Ed supports Obama more than Nader ON THE ISSUES? I don't think so. And I'll bet anyone on here $50 that if Obama wins and we're STILL occupying Iraq and probably soon Iran, that Ed will be outspoken against him and still protesting the war(s).
  • NOCODE#1 wrote:
    you can't reason with kabong. he's set on discrediting a black man *gasp* that might be president. its in his blood.

    Right... anyone that doesn't support Obama, and has valid reasons he can back it up with, is racist. What a pathetic post.

    Why don't you support McCain? Ageist? Hate white people?
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    My argument is weak? I was just backing up what kabong posted. i dont believe his paltry vote numbers cost the Democrats Florida -- that makes him irrelevant in that election -- so you have a diagreement with your own argument evidently.

    Nader will have no relevance to the outcome of the 2008 election. He may be relevant to you and your vote but not to this election.


    if he's irrelevant why does the democratic party sue to have his name kept OFF a ballot!?!?

    if he were actually allowed into the debates, instead of being threatened w/ aresst if he entered a debate he had a ticket for and was invited inside by Faux News, then he'd have more of an impact. Why are the dems so afraid of having his name on a ballot or having his views heard by the nation?

    "Democrats are trying to block Mr. Nader's access to the ballot in several swing states. Democrats have recruited Laurence H. Tribe, the Harvard law professor, to argue the case."


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiED0xToa48
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • flywallyflyflywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    El_Kabong wrote:
    if he's irrelevant why does the democratic party sue to have his name kept OFF a ballot!?!?

    if he were actually allowed into the debates, instead of being threatened w/ aresst if he entered a debate he had a ticket for and was invited inside by Faux News, then he'd have more of an impact. Why are the dems so afraid of having his name on a ballot or having his views heard by the nation?

    "Democrats are trying to block Mr. Nader's access to the ballot in several swing states. Democrats have recruited Laurence H. Tribe, the Harvard law professor, to argue the case."


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiED0xToa48

    Why did they sue to keep him off the ballot in 2004 ?? Maybe THEY thought he would be relevant, maybe they wanted him to follow the rules where suing wouldnt be possible?

    Was he invited to be on the stage at that debate? If not then he had no business there. Perhaps they felt if he was in the audience he would be a distraction or perhaps cause a commotion such as flinging his poo at the candidates. Must have been quite an honor to be invited by FOX news.
    Edit -- the Democrats didnt exclude him from the debates, the SPONSORS did...big difference.
    http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_16_02.html

    So you guys say he had no affect on the Florida vote, you show numbers (up above) that support this contention.... yet you say he was/is relevant to the election. WHICH IS IT ?
  • Why did they sue to keep him off the ballot in 2004 ?? Maybe THEY thought he would be relevant, maybe they wanted him to follow the rules where suing wouldnt be possible?

    Was he invited to be on the stage at that debate? If not then he had no business there. Perhaps they felt if he was in the audience he would be a distraction or perhaps cause a commotion such as flinging his poo at the candidates. Must have been quite an honor to be invited by FOX news.

    So you guys say he had no affect on the Florida vote, you show numbers (up above) that support this contention.... yet you say he was/is relevant to the election. WHICH IS IT ?


    He is relevant in influencing the platforms of the other candidates and keeping them for going even further towards a centerist platform. If you had bothered reading the washington post piece I just posted you would know this.

    He had an invitation to watch the debate, not be on the stage yet he was stoppped by police from being allowed in the building because the DNC didn't even want him on the grounds. I've posted this before, too. Guess you didn't bother to read it either.

    It is very relevant in having a functional democracy that allows for choice instead of having the 2 main parties run unopposed. They either have to take on some of the issues Nader is or risk losing votes from people like me. That is very much relevant. But saying that Nader cost Gore the election is stupid when there was a libertarian ticket, socialist party ticket and others on the ballot, as well who got more votes than the difference between Gore and Bush also. Second, it's just plain anti-democratic to say people were supposed to vote for Gore in the first place despite the fact that they chose not to based on their own beliefs.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • flywallyflyflywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    He is relevant in influencing the platforms of the other candidates and keeping them for going even further towards a centerist platform. If you had bothered reading the washington post piece I just posted you would know this.

    He had an invitation to watch the debate, not be on the stage yet he was stoppped by police from being allowed in the building because the DNC didn't even want him on the grounds. I've posted this before, too. Guess you didn't bother to read it either.

    It is very relevant in having a functional democracy that allows for choice instead of having the 2 main parties run unopposed. They either have to take on some of the issues Nader is or risk losing votes from people like me. That is very much relevant. But saying that Nader cost Gore the election is stupid when there was a libertarian ticket, socialist party ticket and others on the ballot, as well who got more votes than the difference between Gore and Bush also. Second, it's just plain anti-democratic to say people were supposed to vote for Gore in the first place despite the fact that they chose not to based on their own beliefs.

    How does he influence the other candidates' platforms when they wont even talk with him? Who did/has he influence out of the candidates since he ran for office beginning in 2000?? I read the piece you posted, so what? It is an opinion piece in which, I might add, it says, "Nader is undoubtedly a less appealing candidate than he was in 2000, when by winning 97,000 votes in Florida he famously cost Gore the election." -- so I guess you think this guy is stupid (your quote) or do you just nitpick out of articles?


    The DNC did not stop Nader from attending the debate, the sponsors did... guess you posted wrong info I didnt read. I guess if people doont read everything you've ever posted then they are misinformed, how elitist...jeez, someone is full of their self-importance.

    Nader was not relevant to the OUTCOME of the 2000 or 2004 elections.

    So if Nader wasnt running you are saying you would vote for Obama, Clinton, or McCain? Is that what you mean by risking losing your vote? If they dont take his issues as their own then they risk losing your vote....so you would vote for one of them if Nader wasnt in the mix. Interesting.
  • Eliot RosewaterEliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    How does he influence the other candidates' platforms when they wont even talk with him?
    There are those of us that believe by keeping Gore more honest to the dem platform, Nader actually helped Gore in the election. But you have to be a little more evolved and NOT watch network news all day to really understand it...
  • flywallyflyflywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    There are those of us that believe by keeping Gore more honest to the dem platform, Nader actually helped Gore in the election. But you have to be a little more evolved and NOT watch network news all day to really understand it...

    Hehehe. You have no idea how non mainstream I am. Thanks for your attempt at being elitist but you really just come off as a jackass, fyi.
Sign In or Register to comment.