Did Nader really cost Gore the election?
El_Kabong
Posts: 4,141
i watched the nader doc an unreasonable man and found some bits interesting.
like a clip of katie couric on the today show saying exit polls show the overwhelming majority of nader voters said they wouldn't have voted for either gore or bush if he wasn't on the ballot, they would have been stay at home voters
also that EVERY third party candidate on the florida ballot, and there were quite a few, received more votes than was the difference between gore and bush
so why is no one blaming buchanon for stealing the election? or the libertarians? or any of the other third party candidates?
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903)
"Maxims for Revolutionists"
like a clip of katie couric on the today show saying exit polls show the overwhelming majority of nader voters said they wouldn't have voted for either gore or bush if he wasn't on the ballot, they would have been stay at home voters
also that EVERY third party candidate on the florida ballot, and there were quite a few, received more votes than was the difference between gore and bush
so why is no one blaming buchanon for stealing the election? or the libertarians? or any of the other third party candidates?
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903)
"Maxims for Revolutionists"
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
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
0
Comments
I am not sure I buy that. Democratic & independent voters are more easily swayed by 3rd party candidates (Nader, Perot, etc) than Republicans. Independents are more apt to vote Democratic yet will idealistically vote independent if they have the choice. I don't think there is any doubt that Nader is the reason Bush won the election in 2000. Also, there's no way THAT many Nader voters would have just stayed home, and even if they did that wouldn't have affected the outcome anyway.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Whenever this question is raised, i remind myself that Gore actually won.
It was a contested election, Gore won the popular vote nationally, and by most recounts, won the popular vote in Florida, as well. Which means he actually won the electoral college, and should have been president. So, when we discuss why Bush is president, we should remember that he is president, because the election was close enough that it was in the margin of contestability, and Bush’s team was better at fighting the contested election.
Votes are earned - not owed. We still live in America, this is still a democracy, and whether it's 2000 or 2008, Nader still has a right to run. Nader did not cost Gore the election. Gore,The Supreme Court, Jeb Bush, and the dragon lady who certified the election, cost Gore the election. If Al really wanted those votes, he would have worked hard and earned them. Nader did work hard in 2000, and Nader did earn those votes.
Before you blame Nader, blame the millions of folks who voted for Bush. Blame the 5 crucial peoples votes (Yes, Supreme Court Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O’Connor, and Kennedy–Republicans all–voted for Bush when it really counted.)
Blame the folks who stopped citizens from voting. Thousands of Floridians were disenfranchised in various ways, disproportionately affecting African-American communities. These included: Incorrectly purging many people from the voter rolls as “ex-felons” when those people were not in fact felons; turning away voters at polling places because of over-crowding; the ballot design issues that led to a lot of Pat Buchanan votes in a liberal Democratic Jewish county.
Blame Gore. Ultimately, the election was Gore’s to lose or win.
Nader offered to meet with Gore and made noises about leaving the election in exchange for some compromises. Gore refused to take Nader’s campaign seriously and so committed a fatal flaw.
Beyond Nader, Gore refused to broaden his base to include the grassroots left. This was a political calculation. Deciding whether that was a mistake or the right judgment call is another question. But it was no surprise to Gore that a certain number of folks on the left felt disaffected by his campaign and alienated by the policies of the Democratic party. It’s the responsibility of any candidate to form a coalition — in this country, coalitions & support are formed prior to the winner-take-all election. Gore chose not to work with the grassroots left, and consequently did not build a large enough coalition to take the election out of the contested area.
Blame the folks who stopped the recounts that would have solved the problem.The US Supreme Court stopped a recount (later deciding that there wasn’t time to recount).
Gore chose not to contest the election, despite the blatant disenfranchisement of thousands of African-Americans and other citizens.
An “angry Republican mob” attempted to dissuade recounts from happening in Miami-Dade. The mob was engineered by the Republican party.
Blame the incorrectly admitted votes. Florida admitted absentee military votes that were mailed and received after deadline. This includes votes that were problematic.
Blaming Nader is easy, but it's not that simple.
congratulations McCain
Anytime it comes down to one state and/or a tiny margin, you can find all sorts of things that would have made up for the difference.
If anything, I blame the court decision, not Nader or people voting for him.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Bush- 2,912,790
Gore- 2,912,253
Nader- 97,488
Others- 40,579
People who didn't vote- 6,348,696!!!!!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Nader didn't cost us the election, he was the alternative to what we have now, and again there is still this alternative to war, occupation, gov't handouts, corporate handouts. There is an alternative to empire. Nader understands the complexities of our gov't and will take steps to make sure it doesn't continue. hE IS OF THE RESISTANCE.
VOTE NADER
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Good Stuff!
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
exactly!
i don't get how in 'an inconvenient truth' he says something about he really won, then why did you give up??? un florida law there HAD to be a recount
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
but you are not addressing my second question of what about all the other third party candidates? you can't blame someone else for getting votes instead of you, maybe if gore had better platforms or if the dems had run a better candidate (and in 04, too)
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2000&fips=12&f=1&off=0&elect=0&minper=0
George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 2,912,790 48.85% 25
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 2,912,253 48.84% 0
Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 97,488 1.63% 0
Patrick Buchanan Ezola Foster Reform 17,484 0.29% 0
Harry Browne Art Olivier Libertarian 16,415 0.28% 0
John Hagelin A. Nat. Goldhaber Natural Law 2,281 0.04% 0
Monica Moorehead Gloria La Riva World Workers 1,804 0.03% 0
Howard Phillips J. Curtis Frazier Constitution 1,371 0.02% 0
David McReynolds Mary Cal Hollis Socialist 622 0.01% 0
James Harris Margaret Trowe Soc. Workers 562 0.01% 0
Write-ins - - 40 0.00%
bush won by 537 votes, only the write-ins had less than that
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
be careful when stating your opinion as fact...
That's my favorite little fact to throw at people when they're discussing how Nader lost Gore the election. No one knows how to respond to that.
It just goes to show how the average Dem has been fed this line of bull and accepts it without a second thought.
Nader's candidacy was not the cause of the Democrats' defeat in 2000
First published: Monday, March 10, 2008
In regard to the Feb. 26 Times Union editorial on Ralph Nader: It is disingenuous at best to conflate Al Gore's loss to George Bush in the 2000 presidential election as the sole responsibility of Mr. Nader's candidacy. At worst, it is simply inaccurate.
You seem perfectly at ease with casting a blind eye toward the U.S. Supreme Court's interference in a presidential election long before such interference should even have been considered. The court's decision was determined by each justice's political affiliation, thus providing the Republicans the "victory."
Such action by the nation's highest court should have been a very last resort. You also neglect to mention the fact that the Florida state attorney general (a conservative) took some perfectly astounding liberties in her interpretation of Florida election law, liberties that clearly favored the Republican candidate.
There were other irregularities in the vote counting process and in the manipulation of public opinion by a lazy, biased and irresponsible national media. Moreover, Mr. Gore can hardly be said to have run a model campaign.
Yet from all of these clear violations of both the law and fair play, Mr. Nader is somehow held solely responsible for the Democrats' defeat in 2000.
One of Mr. Nader's more emphatic assertions is his conviction that the United States' two-party political system is irreparably compromised.
I am a regular reader of your newspaper and follow your opinion columnists and editorials with interest. You have yet to provide even a shred of evidence that his assertion is in any way inflated or incorrect.
If Mr. Nader has a problem, it is this: He is extremely principled and unflinchingly honest about what works in government and what does not. His command of the facts is unsurpassed and it is this command of the facts (that and the fact that he is an extremely articulate speaker) that has disqualified him from participating in presidential "debates" up to now.
Nobody "owns" Ralph Nader; that's what makes him so dangerous. A statesman is almost unheard of: Ralph Nader just happens to be both.
DAVID OWENS
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Just another opportunity to diss Nader simply for the fact the Dems and Reps still quake in their boots at the mention of his name.