In fact, at the same time as W. was moving to Washington D.C. to establish his residence, Gore was dithering about how to concede.

I'm not an USian. I thought it was an incredible display of ineptitude, to say the least.

there were no other avenues to pursue. period. exclamation point.

I saw George W. Bush's team being *very* aggressive, setting out both the story and the sequence of events. By the time the Supreme Court decided it, their decision was already implanted both in events on the ground and in the public's mind.

When I say "Gore should have fought it harder" I mean that the Democratic Party as a whole should have been on the offensive from the first, should have known what to expect from the Republicans....

But of course I'm just a Monday Morning Quarterback - with not the greatest memory in the world. I mostly remember my *feelings* at the time, watching those US election results, and I'm speaking about my feelings *before* the Supreme Court decision. That is, when the Supreme Court decision came down there was something of inevitability to it, because the Democratic Party already projected sufficient weakness to give that decision cover.

My immediate reaction was that Ohio was also stolen.
But of course no one will ever know, except the perps, if it was done.

I find it hard to criticize Gore, or Kerry, or any particular person - when the real problem seems to be both institutional and functional, as in: why the fuck isn't there a perfectly transparent and uniform voting process across *any* country, for the democratic elections that underpin individual freedom?

So it costs a *bit* of money, a drop in the bucket in fact - but wouldn't paper ballots, marked by hand, dropped into sealed boxes with scrutineers from all parties and 3rd parties watching every move up to and including the actual counting of each ballot. That's the system I was nurtured in and gave me confidence, and I've enjoyed every minute of my few times working as scrutineer, including the after vote celebration/wake with my more politically aware friends.

I don't like the black boxes of electronic voting machines, esp. closed source machines, which are such obvious targets for rigging. It boggles the mind, how many ways one can think of to rig electronic/computerized voting processes, and it's NOT CONSISTENT to suppose that political party bigwigs, constitutional lawyers and so on, even the collection of bought-and-paid-for MSM press "pundits", are totally unaware that there's a problem here.

You said Gore was dithering, I was wondering what you thought of Kerry's concession. We all knew there was something wrong in Ohio. Did Kerry Cave if Gore dithered.

I'll let you get lost in obscure distinctions between "caving" and "dithering".

and for his blowing off Roe v Wade and claiming Dem's campaigning on that issue is just a scare tactic because republicans woudln't really overturn it.

he seemed to think Bush was a good guy by claiming Bush was like Gore and that Republicans were not really anti choice .

Listen, I voted for Nader. In New York. But even as dumb as gullible as I was back then as a twenty-something, I knew that I shouldn't be voting for Nader if i lived in a contested state. Anyone who voted for Nader in Florida or any other contested state is a thoughtless stupid asshole.

97000 greens in florida
I don't think harris numbers are correct on any level

County numbers are most likely close in Florida. The jooking of the numbers was micro, not macro. Your thesis is silly and trite. Ninety thousand people (Greens or not) voted for Nader in Florida. They are fucking stupid assholes who cost us the 8 years of Bush, and all their catastrophes. yes, they are.

and only 27000 voted for him in 2008 and only 4000 voted for nader in 96
you don't see a large number bump in 2000?
he could rally 4000 in 96
in 2000 he pulls 97000
and in 04 hes down to 32000
I guess he just got interesting as hell here in florida in 2000
for the record I didn't even know he was on the ballot in 2000 until I saw the ballot
it wasn't like he canvassed the state on a whistlestop tour

It's consistent probably with his numbers across the country. Nobody gave a shit about Nader in 1996. By 2004, only the terminally stupid lefties threw their votes to Bush. Nader was certainly polling at his highest EVERYWHERE in 2000. I went to a full Madison Square Garden event in NYC in October 2000, with Michael Moore headlining and Eddie Vedder playing Dylan or some shit. You think Nader could fill the Garden in 96? In 04? Contest the county numbers out of Florida. Show me the county where Nader's vote is off by thousands.

Listen, everybody with a lick of sense can see what you're doing here. You hold up Katherine Harris as some bogey(wo)man because nobody can "agree" with Harris. But the truth is rather more simple: the county numbers in the most vigorously scrutinized election in the history of the WORLD are not off by much, Harris be damned. Her role was to certify the busted numbers out of Palm Beach and push through the certification. She did not jook Nader's vote by thousands, much less tens of thousands. The truth is simple, as much as you hate to hear it: Nader voters, leftists, allowed the margin that let people like Harris steal the election. The Left were useful idiots for the Bushistas; the Left got conned, and the Left has some responsibility for the horrors that followed. I was of the Left in those days. I know 90,000 voted for Nader because I traveled in those circles. We were all conned, but some (in contested states) were orders of magnitude dumber than others.

have to check the county by county
I just don't see the logic in blaming nader for a stolen election
if they stole it they stole it and nader had nothing to do with it

Without them, there is no stolen election.

Certainly, it is right and proper to blame the culprits for the crime. You blame the wolf for eating the sheep. But the silly Little Boy who acted so stupidly is also culpable in part, has some measure of responsibility as well. Because it is a duty to be vigilant against the wolves, and not to be a stupid fuckwit. It is a fucking solemn duty.

and Harris also gets blame because of her vote purging.

But even if Nader only had half of the 90k votes — that otherwise would have gone to Gore — it would not have even been close enough for the repugs and SCOTUS to steal it.

I don't know if you are here or not but more like 70% of naders voters were (if they even exist which I personally doubt) former reform party voters and unlikely to vote for gore

It's convenient now to call people who voted for him in Florida assholes, but why was he able to get those votes and Gore wasn't?

Please don't tell me it was because Nader lied. His point that New Democrats were getting too much like Republicans is not a lie. An exaggeration, maybe, but that's not exactly unknown or unexpected in a Presidential campaign. And, odds are, the people who voted for Nader in Florida weren't born yesterday.

One takeaway from that election could have been that Democrats may risk their own base while hotly pursuing Republican votes.

I remember Nader's telling people to vote for him if their state was solid blue or solid red. He called that a "no brainer," at least for people who believed in his platform. I don't recall his telling people in purple states that voting for him was a no brainer, though.

It's very convenient to demonize a man who spent his life trying to make things better for Americans and to call people who voted for him assholes. It's very convenient, too, to pretend Democrats had, and still have, some God-given right to a clear field, even if Nader was running only to push back against a rightward movement in the Democratic Party that he thought was bad for the America and not because he ever thought he could win.

I wish, though, that the takeaway from that election had been, "If Democrats want to keep going right, fine, but that may have consequences for Democrats, so think first."

tear it down
prove to me the election results as reported are the true and correct results
and please do so without miss harris numbers or formulate some hypothesis where her numbers can be taken as true

How can I tear down your strawman?

You built it and you knocked it down in your OP. It's a phony argument built upon a phony premise.

Everything else is just bullshit.

Dunno why people pretend otherwise.

It would not have even been remotely close enough for the repugs to steal it.

Come on, it's not that hard to see that.

Nader fucked the country by running interference for Bush.

Wonder how much was placed in his Swiss bank account for a job well done?

has been money. I don't even think he writes his books for money, but to get whatever the book has to say out there.

They seem to like to play CYA for the BFEE.

and then the hospital commits malpractice so you die.

Both the stabber and hospital are culpable.

Actually, exactly like several people running a race.

The only crime committed was the theft. The theft of the election was not akin to "malpractice" it was the stabbing.

Everything that preceding the theft (stabbing) was legal. An illegal act is a superseding and intervening cause.

Last edited Thu Jul 3, 2014, 05:45 AM - Edit history (1)

halfway good campaign, it would not have come down to one state, anyway. He didn't even win his home state.

I don't think anyone owes any Party a clear shot. The Republicans have had several parties running against them for years and don't seem to have a need to obsess or whine or demonize. Politician up, for pity sake.

I also think the lock the two largest parties have on the country, the media, the debates, etc. is not healthy for Americans. Politicians of any party should have to win our votes, not say things like, "The left has nowhere else to go (implied: so we can go as far right as we like)." (BTW, if going right is the way to get votes--as opposed to a more FDR approach, why are Republicans losing elections?)

What I don't get is why we are focusing on Nader 2000. He is not running again and IIRC, he's since even endorsed Democrats.

I add, although my personal actions shouldn't matter, that, in 2000, I got a call from an idealistic and very smart kid in Missouri who has since become an environmental lawyer (on the side of the environment, not defending polluters).

He was for Nader. He knew Missouri would go red, but it could be close, and Massachusetts would go blue. He offered to vote for Gore in Missouri, if I'd vote for Nader in Massachusetts. I refused.

Then, I just could not even imagine myself not voting Democrat, even though I did not then, and do not now, hate Nader personally. (He's done too much good in his life for me ever to hate him, more, I'm betting than most who do hate him so self-righteously.) And when Bush won Florida (allegedly), I was silently furious at Nader and even the kid, but, in hindsight, both those things seem irrational.

Why so much BS? Gore won Florida. The miscounts of the votes showed the election was stolen. Case closed.

So why are some here running around with their hair on fire over Nader 2000? Because they are afraid of the Truth? It makes them wet their pants to think the election could be stolen?

Look at them, using stupid ass dumb arguments, to prove what? To prove the election wasn't stolen? Ha. They can't do that, but they can make excuses, and that is all they are doing. They probably should all take a long vacation from DU. We don't need pants wetters around with the elections coming on. We need people who can face the Truth.

They have an interest in keeping the two-party status quo. They prefer the duopoly and the false sense of choice we have.

There are scores of parties--indeed far too many to be effective.

Five of those are considered major national parties, Dem and Repub (duh), Libertarian, Constitution and Green. Green is the only one of the five that is to the left of Democrats.

when the Supreme Court released 2 of the most fucked up decisions in decades. Some of us realize that any time a 3rd party candidate is pulling over a few percent it normally affects the outcome as it did in 2000. Take the lack of folks willing to admit the truth of what I just wrote plus the daily vicious attacks on the party here, which were just as much beyond the pale as the Nader shit is now, and you have a perfect storm.

I call for moderation on both sides at this point. So just to restate it once more differently, no its not about Nader, its about what happens when we don't all come together in the general election (see Supreme Court decisions and all the other shit that Bush is responsible for).

Once elected, politicians have to do things that make people want to vote for them and/or their party again. FDR got re-elected until he dropped dead, literally. So many times, that even his stupid fellow Democrats panicked and passed a Constitutional amendment so no President could get re-elected that many times again, no matter how much Americans loved them and their policies.

will follow through on their promises. So, have at it in the Primary when it makes perfect sense to do so. But committing suicide in the General is just that.

I got it (anger) out of my system on Monday. I would much rather discuss where we go from here.

the primaries are a level playing field. I don't even think you think that.

The real promises are only the ones spelled out in writing, any other verbal statements should be questioned and stronger commitments pursued.

Another factor is of course the other government branches and whether they will go along with what a candidate is promising.

Another factor is unplanned events like the Great Recession, the collapse of the auto industry, foreign policy crisis etc. These take time and money away from working on the promises.

I actually think Obama has done pretty good at getting his main proposals through while dealing with all the other shit. I do not agree with folks who say he didn't follow through on his Health Care promises. During the campaigns he was pretty careful about saying it would have to be worked out with all the players. Thats what was done. I don't have a handy list of his other accomplishments. Tired too.

As far as how the primaries work, its only nearly level if you look at how much money they have. One of the biggest problems... yes. How does that get fixed? What I perceive is that there are rare opportunities to do certain big things like real reform to campaign finance. I don't think we have had that opportunity yet in my lifetime. An opportunity simply means there is enough popular support around an idea that some champion can pick it up and run with it.

Merrily, its late and I am tired...going to call it a night now. It was nice talking with you.

Apparently, you saw right through that.

The real promises are only the ones spelled out in writing, any other verbal statements should be questioned and stronger commitments pursued.

Sorry, but promises in writing have been broken, too. (I am assuming you'd concede that things spelled out on a candidate's campaign website qualify as having been in writing.) But, in what universe am I getting to question Presidential candidates and pursue stronger commitments from them? And if even written promises are broken with total impunity, because the base is willing to excuse and rationalize endlessly, what, really, is the point of pursuing stronger commitments?

Another factor is of course the other government branches and whether they will go along with what a candidate is promising.

We get campaign promises in campaign season, and then we get excuses like the above for why the promises don't get fulfilled.

If governing like a Democrat is so damn impossible unless:

1. Democrats hold well over 60% of the seats in Congress (to make up for Blue Dogs--who are not all that different from New Democrats anyway--and, of course, Lieberman, who got blamed even when he voted with Democrats),

2. At least 5 seats on the SCOTUS bench;

AND

3. a Democrat in the Oval Office all at one time,

then, we really need to stop making excuses and come up with ways to change that alleged reality. Alternatively, we shyould just disband the very expensive group in Washington, D.C. because the scenario ennumerated above is NEVER going to happen. Or, if it will happen, but only after many years and only after Democrats get more and more like Republicans, then what is really the point?

Another factor is unplanned events like the Great Recession, the collapse of the auto industry, foreign policy crisis etc. These take time and money away from working on the promises.

You mean, like the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl and the rise of Hitler that FDR had to deal with simultaneously? (Yeah, yeah, I know. He had a bigger Democratic majority, but that majority was far from united. And he had Republicans in control at times, too, plus a conservative SCOTUS that, on federal power under the commerce clause, anyway, would have made the Roberts Court seem hard left.

Not to mention, that there is always money for "defense" which now includes the military, mercenaries, nation builders of various kinds, the Coast Guard, Homeland Security, the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Secret Service, the armed personnel in every single government department, etc.

Besides, government told us that we got back all the money we gave to the banksters and automakers. So, why is that even an excuse?

And here's a template for contingency planning: Shit happens. It always has and it always will. And politicians are responsible for how they deal with it or fail to deal with it.

Great post.

Thanks merrily. There are too many here who come up with more and more bizarre rationalization to avoid admitting that the dc dems no longer represent most of us, either because they're too weak or they work for the corporations

It's because the third-way believes that they have a candidate who is a shoe in to win any Dem primary, and will be running against a Jeb or some other "moderate Republican" after the Rep's do their own totally rigged primary dance. But the third-way knows that there's not a lick of difference between their preferred candidate and any Rep candidate, except w.r.t. so-called "social issues" that have no immediate economic/MIC/MSM impact on the US empire. They know how the system is rigged for the corporatocracy. In that rigged system, third-party candidates, third-party (non-MSM) media, third-party thinking of any kind is anathema.

The corporatocracy knows that the candidates that they will be running guarantee a totally open field for any non-corporatist third-party candidate -- and they feel an existential threat.

defend Nader.

and they feel an existential threat.

Well, if this thread and the two other Nader threads I've been posting on today is their response to an existential threat, their feeling an existential threat is well warranted.

But no doubt I don't understand this thread as much as I would, if only I were more clever, dedicated, informed...

Increasingly I'm looking at DU in general as something like a canary in a coal-mine, except more in a "you heard it here first - when the memes were in alpha development", and I see the recent focus on Nader-2000 in that light.

e.g. I heard vilification of "Putinistas" here at DU, first, and well before I heard the same vilifications later in general MSM distribution. Because I saw it develop from alpha stages at DU, I know that Dem memes for foreign policy will be denial/feigned-ignorance etc. regarding policies/programs/strategies post-GWB. There simply WILL NOT be any putting those matters on the table.

Sorry, I went off-topic. Me bad.

Jaysus. Don't put yourself down that way. It's no good for the spirit.

There is no question in my mind that every poster here is not simply posting innocently, to while away the time. And some poster's inboxes and fax machines or whatever do contain talking points. So, I agree with you.

I am not here every day, all day. However, from what is being posted, I am gathering that the scenario went something like this:

1. Elections coming up in November + Hillary trying to be palmed off as inevitable in 2016--no primary needed, etc. And some of the more leftist posters are threatening not to vote for her if she is the nominee.

2. Supreme Court decisions coming down that the left does not like.

3. Aha! Roberts and Alito on the court thanks to Bush and Bush president solely thanks to Nader--and the damned liberals who voted for him.

4. Proliferation of threads for and against Nader, third party voting in general and (ptui!) liberals.

Even though the criminal Harris pulled ever kind of subterfuge Gore still won in Florida. It was the CORRUPT PARTISAN SUPREME COURT that stole the 2,000 presidential election—a clear act of treason.

Nader LIED when he said he wouldn't campaign in any swing state, he LIED when he claimed that Gore and Bush were the same, that the Democrats and republicans were the same. That's a completely different subject than the shenanigans played by the pubs in Florida. If even 1/4 of those 92,000 votes he got in Florida had gone to Gore, what the pubs did with the votes wouldn't even be a problem. I can't believe that people are still trying to forget what Nader did - or get other people to forget. Not ever going to happen.

Gore, or bush?

I bet you can't even say that Gore actually won, but it was stolen.

by 500+ votes. What does that have to do with my post? Without Nader, it wouldn't have been near close enough to steal.

running for office--an office he knew very well he'd never win anyway, no matter where he did or did not campaign?

to do with the fact he LIED? It's especially egregious because he knew he had no chance. That just makes it worse and only an exercise in ego.

It's only a lie if, when he said it, it intended to do something else. Otherwise, it's a change of mind.

Over and over in 2006, Obama said on national TV he would not run for Prez at all in 2008. Was he lying when he said it, or, after that, did people and/or situations convince him to run and therefore Obama's thinking on that "evolved?" Can you really know for certain, one way or the other?

It's especially egregious because he knew he had no chance. That just makes it worse and only an exercise in ego.

Especially egregious and egotistical or especially sacrificial? Running is not easy, especially if you are not a young person. This man spent his life trying to make things better for Americans. I think he ran for that same reason. I think he saw a threat in the DLC. (So do I.) That he wanted to cut back against. (So do I, but I don't have his name or abilities.)

My Reply 47 to Alcibades has some additional info on that. Obviously, you and I have differing view. You apparently believe he lived his life one way, then changed suddenly into some kind of egomaniacal monster who violated some theretofore unheard of rule about how only Democrats have a right to run to the left of Republicans (but Perot, the Constitutional Party and others should keep on vying for the Republican base?) That's very convenient for New Democrat politicians, but not quite as convenient for leftist voter or, IMO, for the country. (I believe left is preferable to right.)

I, on the other hand, see his run as a continuation of his trying to help Americans. I don't think we'll agree. It's just totally different points of view and ways of interpreting the identical set of facts.

but as you assumed I would, I disagree. I think all the attention he got went to his head. To say there is no difference between the parties is inexcusable. Just think what the SC would be like without Alito and Roberts and two liberals were there instead. He has done quite a bit of good in his life but as far as I'm concerned, he threw all that goodwill out the window when he said both parties were the same - that's an unforgivable lie.

to make Florida pivotal. That should never have happened, either. And, to top it off, he suffered from premature concession.

But no one blames Gore or his campaign And no one blames Clinton, either, who did not exactly set the table for a Gore victory. I never saw a Presidential candidate announce on Trinity Broadcasting, vowing to bring dignity back to the Oval Office, until Bush ran against Gore.

I think all the attention he got went to his head.

Read his wiki. He had plenty of attention, indeed, adoration, before he ever ran for President. He had nothing to gain by running but pain, but he sure had a lot to lose. And, if you haven't noticed, the attention goes to the heads of all who run for President. In fact, you have to be pretty damned egotistical to run with the idea that you might actually win.

He has done quite a bit of good in his life but as far as I'm concerned, he threw all that goodwill out the window

He's saved countless lives, helped the environment immeasurably, etc. Campaign hyperbole doesn't cancel that out. And, remember, Nader was not comparing Bush II with Gore. That hadn't happened yet. He was comparing Bush I with Bubba, Nunn, Robb, Lieberman and the rest of the DLC crowd.

Katherine Harris her nutjobs simply stopped the count which would've never succeeded, because Gore decided to do selective recounts. Had Gore fought for a statewide recount from the onset he'd have been President. Al Franken learned that lesson which is why he's a senator today.

Katherine Harris is wrong for not calling for a full state-wide recount immediately.

Nader is wrong for having campaigned in a swing state and purposefully chipping away Gore's campaign to give Democrats, in his words, "a cold shower."

Are you saying that Harris stole 96,500 votes from Gore and gave them to Nader?

You really think she could have stolen votes on such a massive scale without getting caught?

Bush and Gore were in a statistical tie, and thus the details about counting each vote mattered, thanks to Nader taking so many votes from Gore. As a result, Harris playing games to move the results a thousand votes matters.

No Nader, and it isn't a statistical tie. Moving the results a thousand votes doesn't matter, because Gore would have won by more than a thousand.

Nader wasn't the only factor. Gore could have run a better campaign, the media could have been truthful, and so on. But Nader is one piece of the puzzle.

Harris was in a position to benefit, if she wanted to, by moving a few more votes to the Bush column.

A fair point -and you have shifted my thinking on this. Thanks!

.... at that time and there is nothing anyone could ever say that would make me hold Ralph Nader in anything but complete and utter contempt.

can't stop him. Why? He would have won NH and those 4 electoral votes would have made him President. Stealing Florida which was necessary would not have been sufficient.

I do agree that the BIGGER issue is that since 2000, the Republicans have used any means - legal or illegal - to suppress the vote of Democrats. As a practical matter, the threat for 2016 is not Ralph Nader, but that more states will restrict the rights of people eligible to vote. Even with Nader, Gore would have won had the votes been counted properly in Florida. In 2004, they were more "clever", there were no votes to count for people who could not vote because the lines were 4 hours long in Ohio cities. In 2008, the tide was too high and it did not matter if they tried of not - and in 2012, many discriminatory rules were rejected by courts. Were it not for Carter's grandson exposing the real Romney, that race could have been close enough to steal.

The sad thing is that, the US which sees itself as the epitome of democracy, has an election process of which Jimmy Carter, who led efforts to monitor third world elections, said in 2004 lacked the safeguards he insisted on for those countries. Problems included partisans running and counting the votes. Harris, Blackwell are names that easily come to mind.

So, election fraud is and should be the real issue - even if technically, Nader did cost us the election. The fact is that he had the right to run and people had the right to vote for him. I assume that many learned the consequences because Nader got far fewer votes in 2004 than in 2000. (It is true that Nader himself had good things to say of Kerry, that he did not say of Gore - but it is more likely that the reason he got fewer votes was 2000, not Kerry's long history.)

If he praised Kerry more than Gore, it may well have been that Nader thought Kerry more liberal than Gore--especially given Kerry's more remote history. I know of nothing in Nader's history that warrants imputing to him dishonesty in his compliments to a politician. Nothing.

I did not say that he was dishonest - nor did I imply that. What IS in Nader's history is that even after he met with Kerry, said he was Presidential and praised him, he continued to run arguing that it could help Kerry to have him attacking Bush in harsher ways that Kerry could -- and still have a chance to win. However, any votes he gained would likely be votes that if he were not there would be votes of people reluctantly voting for Kerry.

Kerry is likely the most liberal person to get the Democratic nomination in decades.

whether Nader "took" votes from Kerry. It was the reason Nader complimented Kerry; and, forgive me, but I don't care to rehash any other issue.

I think Nader complimented Kerry more than Gore was solely that Nader wanted to compliment Kerry, period; and nothing in Nader's history says otherwise.

If you were not implying anything different than what I said in the prior sentence, then I misunderstood and I apologize.

Further, I was making the point that GIVEN that he still ran in 2004, it is very possible that the reason he ran in 2000 was not just his view of Gore. Then, as he was running, when making a case for doing so, he spoke of there being no difference between Gore and Bush - a comment that people are quoting - including here on this thread - 14 years later!

It is subtle, but the point is that Nader, I think, thought:
- the two party system inadequate
- thought that what he represented was a large group of people who neither party represented

The dilemma is that with the US having (in reality) a two party system, any third party that lies either to the left of the Democrats or the right of the Republicans will, in fact, work against the major party they are closest to. I realize that in fact political space is multi dimensional and this simplifies it to one dimension, but the same thing could be said in a more complicated way - as if the preponderance of people in the new minor party would say that one of the major parties is there second choice. In 2000, Nader made the comment that there was no difference between the two parties as a way to justify potentially helping Bush.

In 2000, no one has questioned that - of the Nader voters, who would have voted had he not run, most would have voted for Gore. Nader's point was that neither would provide the change needed. One person I knew, who supported Nader, argued that sometimes you need things to get REALLY bad to make people angry enough to demand change. Well, we got Bush and things got worse than anyone expected -- and we have a Supreme Court that is working on change ... in the opposite direction.

In 2000, no one has questioned that - of the Nader voters, who would have voted had he not run, most would have voted for Gore.

I question it now. For just one group, in 2004, I was on another board, posting with reds and blues alike. Gay people were saying that Clinton/Gore had devastated them with DOMA and DADT. But for Nader, they would not have voted at all. I had to convince them to vote for Kerry. At least I tried my best and hope that they voted for Kerry. Gays are not a large percentage of the population; and I'm sure many gays voted Dem anyway. Still, when margins are small, every little bit helps.

There is also, as you probably know, also a movement that believes that not voting is a way to deprive a corrupt system of its "legitimacy" or some such. (To be totally forthcoming, I never paid a lot of attention because I didn't think much of their conviction in not voting.) The more disillusioned and disappointed people get though, the more appeal that view has. And, even if one is not adhering to that view, if one is not excited about either the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate, one may well stay home.

Seems to me that whatever success Nader had in 2000 (those that ran to the right of Bush also, like Buchanan) suggested that those voters were indeed, to put it mildly, not excited about Bush or Gore. So, the alternative to Nader may have been no vote at all, not necessarily a Gore vote.

I don't think anyone knows.

I agree that many might not have voted at all. I have immediate family who are gay, but never saw that the gay community - which had good reason to be disenchanted - did not vote for Gore. In fact, if asked, I have no idea where Nader is on LGBT issues. Also you deserve a lot of credit for advocating for Kerry four years later.

On LGBT issues, I think the credit for the unimaginable a decade ago change is more due to activists and to the huge changes in the culture. I think that as more people saw "gays" as their sister or brother, daughter or son, or friend or neighbor, change happened. While some politicians were better than others, this really is something that the millennials likely deserve more credit than any leader does.

Also you deserve a lot of credit for advocating for Kerry four years later.

But, the time that I advocated for Kerry at the time that Kerry was running for President and I heard from some gays that they would not vote for him. To be honest, given Bush's alleged evangelicalism, it wasn't too hard to convince gays they should not help him win by voting for Nader. Either I convinced them or they humored me.

As I said in my prior post, I have no doubt that many gays voted Democrat in 2000, but every little bit counts, especially in pivotal counties. However, I do know for certain that they felt they had believed Clinton, worked for Clinton and then they felt betrayed by Clinton. And Gore was part of that administration, the closest thing to voting for Clinton again.

I don't know where Nader stood on that issue, either. (I am ashamed to say, I don't know where he stood on anything. I knew I was not voting for him, so I did not then feel any need to delve into his platform. Lazy and incurious. Or maybe just exhausted. But, I'm ashamed.) But, at a minimum, gays didn't feel betrayed by him.

I think gays deserve the credit. They've come out by the droves, which was a very hard thing to do. And it didn't hurt that a lot of them are bundlers for the Democratic Party in disproportionate numbers, one out of eight, I read.

what happened this week that I missed that caused this 14 year old outrage to suddenly become vogue again...as-it-does-every-single-year-since-and-there-is-nothing-we-can-do-about-it?

Learn from the past, live in the present, plan for the future.

"You MUST vote for Hillary!"

That's why. They want to remind everyone that she is the only person that could possibly win and attempting to support anybody but her will lead to disaster. Of course, she hasn't even stated that she is running yet and 2016 is a few years away.

Personally, I think it is just as important to get solid Dems in state and local offices as anything else, because that is really where Bush stole the election - at the state level.

The Supreme Court ruling in Hobby Lobby is very disturbing. Thinking about it caused some people to reflect that, if Nader had not decided to run in the general election, this case would likely have been decided the other way.

Please, please, Naderites, I am not saying that Nader did not have a right to run. This is simply a matter of assessing the probable consequences of choices made in the past. The odds are that, if Nader had decided not to run, Gore would have carried Florida by a cheatproof margin, would have become President, would have been filling judicial vacancies, and would have appointed judges who would have rejected Hobby Lobby's claim.

Yes, there are plenty of other "what ifs" -- Gore makes different campaign choices, Congress makes different choices in enacting RFRA, etc. -- but the answer to Javaman's question is that this particular hypothetical has prompted renewed focus on the practical effect of Nader's decision.

But we see how SCOTUS judges, as nominated by the partisan presidents, can have a big impact.

for the fraud that was that election.

All of this other nonsense about Nader is just that - nonsense. It's being pushed as hard and as blatantly as possible as a warning "Thou shalt not consider voting for anyone but Hillary", even though she hasn't even declared she is running yet.

If you want to prevent a rehash of 2000 in 2016, vote for Democrats in your state and local offices. Jeb Bush and Harris are as crooked as a barrel of snakes, and there are plenty of Republicans out there that are just as crooked. None of that nonsense would have happened had Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris not been able to collude to steal the election.

Get out the vote for state and local offices!!! It is just as vital as any other elections!!!

Harris flipping Gore votes to Nader.

On the other hand, Nader's presence made it close enough for Harris to stick her grubby hands in the cookie jar.

But seriously, how is it still relevant today?

1) Voter disenfranchisement

2) Dirty tricks (hanging chads)

3) Shady, no paper trail voting machines

4) Liberals voting for Nader

5) The above issues made the margins close enough to steal. Trust me, they tried to steal it in 2008 and 2012 but the turnout was way too high, so they failed.

6) Corrupt supreme court

I don't believe the crap about Dems voting for Bush. Refer to point 3. If there were some dems that did that, they are irrelevant and not really democrats. The problem was liberal minded people not voting for the person most likely to advance liberal causes.

but in Real Life he only "won". The Real Life victor took the Inaugural oath.