What's your point?

Nader cost Gore the presidency. No Nader, no Bush, no Iraq War, no tax cuts for the rich, etc.

Or, even more irrelevant to the outcome than he's accused of being.

I don't know if appealing to the Left more was really what he needed. In fact, if as many Democrats as you say voted for Bush, maybe he should have appealed more to the center, don't you think?

The thing is, Nader's wasn't a mistake. He knew that he had no chance of winning, and that the only way he could affect the outcome was by throwing the election to Bush. Which is exactly what he did.

Nader didn't "throw" the election. He ran for office on a recognized party ticket. Just as Bush and Gore did. It's the candidate's responsibility to convince the voters to vote for him/her. Gore failed to do so.

Yes, Nader threw the election. He knew he couldn't win, all he could do was tip the scales over to the Bush side. Which is what he did. Without Nader, Gore becomes president.

There was no "throwing" about it.

And in so doing he tipped the election from Bush to Gore. His entire campaign was pointless, because there was no chance of winning. The only thing he could do is make some kind of a statement. And he felt that making a statement was more important than avoiding a Bush presidency. He sabotaged the election in order to make a statement. And the country and the world are worse off because of it.

So, was he a "spoiler"? Should he have abandoned his campaign?

He didn't run as a Democrat, he ran as a Green. The Greens nominated him. Should he have abandoned the party that nominated him because he had no chance to win?

He also wasn't spoiling anything.

Nader, on the other hand, chose to attack Gore and run a campaign based on the false claim that there's no difference between the parties. And he convinced enough Gore voters to vote Green so that Gore lost the election.

Nader did everything within his power to help Bush win. In fact, he couldn't have helped Bush more even by openly campaigning for him. Nader was one of Bush's most powerful tools and allies in 2000.

Nader chose to run for president as an alternative to the establishment parties. Again, if Gore wanted the votes of the left in Florida he should have run to the left.

Although, if Nader hadn't decided to sabotage the election, it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

either tipping the scales or not tipping the scales DEMOCRAT(IC) votes for dimson! That's the telling factor here as to the wishy washy nature of southern democrats and their blue dog leaders. Appalling, just despicable. How could a democrat vote for a bush??? It's beyond my comprehension and if I research, I'll probably find more in that state voting for him in 2004! Democrats like those 308000 is why I know voting is a meaningless exercise with all those benedict arnold's stabbing the party in the back.

Why do you conveniently leave that out in your posts?

have given Gore the win. Dubya then got to appoint two of the Justices out of the five who are making such stellar decisions these days.

to be brought after repug recount shenanigans.

For stopping the recount.

Nader made the decision to run KNOWING FOR A FACT the following two things:

1. That he had no chance whatsoever of winning.
2. That any votes he drew to his absolutely zero chance run were far more likely to be drawn from Gore than Bush, thus tilting the vote in Bush's direction.


Those were not considered debatable points by anybody that I am aware of. Would you care to debate them? Because if you don't deny them then Nader did indeed throw the election to Bush with his decision to run and ciphon support from Gore, thus allowing bush to steal Florida.

It is not. Everyone has a right to run. Libertarians sometimes causes Republicans to lose. So what? It is the system. Nader had every right to run and he had certainly done a lot for the American people and that is why people voted for him.

This has nothing to do with some bizarro claim that Nader was constitutionally obligated not to run on a third party ticket or something, what the hell are you even talking about?


It has to do with the completely foreseeable consequences of his decision to do so, that being tilting the election towards Bush. And it just so happened it ended up being just enough tilt to hand Bush the Presidency.

By stopping the recount that would have proved Gore won. SCOTUS deserves all the blame.

...to end up in front of that court in the first place. What part of that are you having trouble understanding? No Nader insistence on running... no close enough for recount outcome in Florida... no case before the Supreme Court... President Gore.

Period. Non-debatable. The numbers are the numbers.

that Clinton made.

When you have a Democratic president, you need to nominate a Democrat with his or her own reputation, issues, successes to run for president at the end of the term.

You should not nominate a candidate that is tied in the popular imagination too closely with a past president.

George H.W. Bush was elected president for only one term following his vice presidency for Reagan. Nixon was Eisenhower's vice president but did not win until two terms after running as the past vice president. Ford lost to Carter.

We would do best as Democrats if we nominate a candidate in 2016 who is not closely linked to any past presidency. That's one of the lessons.

Also, don't leave working people behind. Democrats cannot win without unions, union members and working people's support. And that cannot be won unless the Party listens to working people and offers policies to solve the problems of working people or at least make life better for them.

You can't sign NAFTA and allow an increase in trade with China, thereby eliminate thousands of factories and millions of jobs in the US and expect working people to bother to go to the polls and vote for you. It's sheer folly.

None of us know how we truly fucking voted in Florida. I voted in Safety Harbor for Gore along with my gf and three other people we took to the polls, but who knows now?

I get really upset when people that state plain out that they voted Nader can blame those on the left that DID vote for Gore, got out the vote and carted other people to the polls that "we are to blame".

If you feel voter's remorse for voting for Nader, that's on you. I did everything I fucking well could to get Gore elected in Florida and I'm on the left.

I don't fucking appreciate having my vote and the votes of every other "far leftist" that voted for Gore minimized like we are traitors to the party.

What would you consider Greens who voted for Gore? Traitors?

are the people that are liberals, regardless of who they voted for, because somehow, some people seem to think they know how everyone on DU voted.

"Far leftist" traitors are anyone that isn't eager to go third way and by speaking out their cause gets "endangered".

No, I think when people vote they vote the way they feel their conscience guides them - including the people yelling at us after they admitted they voted for Nader. I can't assuage their guilt - I simply don't share it.

the 308000 democrat voters who gave bushboy the lesser their votes are traitors. I applaud you, cause I did the same damn thing. We at least walked the walk, while the rest....well you've heard it before.

Yes, Gore won. That's conveniently not mentioned in your post.

Without Nader's siphoning off votes it would not have been close enough for the repugs and their recount shenanigans. There would have been no recount shenanigans.

It's not that hard to understand.

If you voted for Nader, live with it, because we've all had to live with the disastrous result of Bush's presidency, which Nader helped enable. You can deny it all you want but if 24,000 votes give-or-take, that you claim were dem votes for Nader had been in Gore's count there would have been no Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld/Rice/Wolfowitz cabal that just about ruined our country and caused the death of 1 million Iraqis.

If you didn't vote for Nader, what's the point? Or maybe you're one of the dems that voted for Bush?

It's pretty apparent that you didn't vote for Gore.

Nader ran for president on another party's ticket and DID convince a number of people to vote for him. If Gore wanted those votes he should have convinced the voters to vote for him.

I did vote for Gore (with more than a little nose holding) and have never voted for a Republican since becoming a Democrat in 1965. I have voted 3rd party in several elections when the Democratic candidates strayed too far into conservative, DLC, New Democrat, or 3rd Way territory. And, will have no qualms about doing so again if necessary.

Candidates don't get my vote because of their brand, they get my votes because they earn them.

You?

He won. He got more votes nationally. We know that. There was plenty of after-vote analysis that verified that he got more votes in Flori-duh also.

The repugs got the opportunity to steal it because Nader's siphoning off votes that would have went for Gore made it close enough to pull off their recount shenanigans and pull in SCOTUS to select Bush.

Harris's purging also took away Gore votes but repug dirty tricks are always part of the calculus in elections — an egomaniacal-out-to-prove-a-point-so-called-progressive who ran on saying both parties were the same . . . well, that's a whole other disgusting piece of history that we've all had to live with.

And Nader has yet to show any remorse for helping Bushco. Maybe he got paid.

Or, maybe he ran just to give voters another choice. And, some took him up on it. Nader didn't siphon off votes, he earned them from the voters who voted for him. Those votes were available to Gore, he didn't go after them by turning left in fear he would lose votes from the "moderates". Which didn't work either, because the moderates voted for Bush more than they voted for Gore.

Maybe Gore "got paid" for not pursuing the electoral votes instead of caving. I don't believe that or that Nader "got paid".

If you voted for Gore why are you defending Nader so much?

It's pretty obvious to most of us that he drastically affected, and in a bad way, the outcome of the 2000 election.

The Democratic Party has strayed pretty far from it's one time ideals into the 3rd Way/DLC/New Democrat territory. Gore was among them in 2000 and I was tempted to vote for Nader but held my nose.

Since then, my nose holding capacity has lessened and I now look to the more progressive candidates when necessary.

Nader is/was not a stupid man. IMO his egotism in running in 2000 knowing that he had no chance to win but would draw votes from Gore thereby benefiting Bush trumped any progressive bona fides he may have once had — in fact, his campaign was the antithesis of progressivism as it allowed the anti-progressive Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Rice cabal to run roughshod over not just our country but Iraq as well.

And btw, I'd hold my nose forever (anything to stop the right-leaning racist repugs) instead of wasting a vote for a 3rd party like the Greens who want to arrogantly start at the top and run for the presidency without haven't done the hard work of building a party from the ground up.

They need to run and win local elections to school boards then city council, mayor, state reps and on up and get an actual GOTV structure and have a fighting chance at being something more than a protest vote for disillusioned but somewhat naive dems.

And btw in case you didn't know, Nader is now advocating for the impeachment of Barack Obama. What an a-hole.

I consider voting for 3rd Way, New Democrats, DLC, or Repub candidates a wasted vote.

Nader is now calling for the impeachment of Obama.

Yeah he's real progressive.

n/t

And if you're going to be more even-handed in future posts, instead of recycling decade-and-a-half old talking points, then good for you.

Often, the right is where the rightward drift of a nation actually begins.

You do know Nader was funded by the Republicans in both 2000 and 2004, right? GOP very badly wanted him on the ballot for a reason.

GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads
GOP donors funding Nader / Bush supporters give independent's bid a financial lift

Oops.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/10/19/republican-contributions-10-7-million-for-kerry-vs-111-700-for-nader/

You are off to an excellent start...

He was far more complicit than any "DLCer".

...if you think the DLC has no complicity in enacting Republican laws and ideas, regardless of which administration actually sits in the Executive Branch.

You're going off on a wild tangent about the DLC and "enacting Republican laws and ideas." No one said anything about conservative Democrats not being complicit in a broader view.

Some here want to go on a 15 year-old wild tangent, blaming Nader for an election that Gore actually won, in terms of popular votes.

Unfortunately, many corporate Democrats have helped spread and promulgate the pro-corporate, anti-citizen kinds of policies on workplaces, environmental regulation, privacy, etc., advocated by Republicans. Or perhaps they spread a slightly milder (for now) version.

I guess the question is: which enablers do you enable?

Truth, logic, etc.

How does the author of this article KNOW 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush?

Which seems to be the point of all the anti-Nader crap being put up.

but that takes us right back to the original question, how does the author of the article know how many Dems voted for whom, how many Republicans voted for whom and how many Greenies voted for whom? I can understand speculation that some amount of Dems voted for Nader but, that's about it; speculation. So, it would seem that any talk of exactly how many folks voted for candidates x, y or z, is pure bunk.

IMO, a helluva lot more Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader. Speculation? Sure.

All I'm attempting to point out is that blaming Nader for Gore's inability to convince enough voters to vote for him is a very shallow bit of blaming the messenger.

it is that the votes were not counted

lance dehaven smith wrote excellent articles explaining things, gore went looking for the undervotes, votes not picked up by the electronic counters but there were 175,000 overvotes not counted...votes that had punched gore and written in gore ,mostly in black neighborhoods...legally these votes should of been given to gore since voter intent was clear

i agree nadar had every right to run and did not change the election results but please do not say it was gore's fault for not convincing voters to vote for him, he did, we just did not count them...

And 78,350 independents voted for Pat Buchanan.

Se, I can pull numbers outta my ass just like Tim Wise as cited by the author you linked to did.

Good God

But yes many Republicans also voted for Gore as Democrats voted for Bush. This talking point is a deflection since independents were the ones who voted for Nader, and they only did so because of his strenuous campaigning there.

as his first decision after being nominated did not help him gain the confidence of the rank and file Democrats.
I cannot imagine any Democrat picking Joe Lieberman as VP but Gore thought it was a smart thing to do.

in 2000. He was still in the dem camp then.

It wasn't until later that he revealed his rightist leanings and campaigned for repugs.

to the Rovian machine. He gave up any right to expect respect from the left.

How many times did Clinton/Gore do so?

get him into office to seek common cause or to work his policy ideas into a platform or an agenda? Just how many? All we saw from Nader was a grenade lobber leaving destruction in his wake. This is why I don't respect the man. He has no principles any longer. Lost them along ago.

'dirty music'. Al was seen as favorable to censorship. Then he picked Lieberman. Gore was a hard sell among creative Democrats. That's all I know. I worked hard for the Democrats, then they all folded and Al conceded and basically flipped us all the bird for giving him a chance. That's the truth, inconvenient as it might currently be.

There was a very big problem with the censorship. They didn't look like Democrats at all. Then Lieberman...

I cannot believe so many on here are saying Gore should have moved more to the RIGHT. For Fuck's SAKE who doesn't get that he lost votes because he did not appeal to his base? At least Obama knows how to run as a liberal. Sheesh, people.

over sexual matters. I voted for Al. I got many others to do so. It was really hard.

IIRC, GORE WAS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE.

yet the left that voted for him is being demonized and it is beginning to piss me off. People are on here freely admitting to voting for Nader, while admonishing those of us that voted for Gore as though we are somehow in the wrong, and I'm sick of that shit.

I VOTED and 4 other people went to the poll with me in Florida to vote for GORE. Not Santa Clause, not Bush, but GORE.

When you keep pounding that liberals are the problem, which I am a liberal, when we got out the vote I have to wonder what your fucking agenda is.

sentence. Did you mis-read my post? It was a SLAM AT NADERITES.

I HAVE NEVER "POUNDED" ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT LIBERALS.

I'm also a flaming liberal gore-voter and this attempt to smear us even after many who scream about Nader were those who admitted they voted for him is upsetting.

My apologies if you thought I was unfairly calling you out, and I can see how you would think that based upon my reply. I wasn't - it's the rest of these folks who want to grind leftists into the ground that are really irritating the shit out of me.

It took some serious nose-holding for me to vote for that slap-in-the-face choice for VP

But to say that Nader bares zero responsibility is not correct.


It is amazing that "Progressives" feel the need to defend Nader.

As in running for office is bad if it threatens the status quo or gives voters a choice among candidates.

I don't mean to be rude, but I've heard "Florida liberals did this" "Liberals do that" when none of us know what in the hell we voted for because the election process got so fucked up. I can count 5 D votes that I personally took to the polls.

Liberals are NOT the reason Gore didn't get elected, and this bullshit needs to stop. I want liberal politicians, but I will take what I can get - but I will primary the shit out of anyone that wants to be a thirdway candidate. If forced to vote for them, I will, but I won't be exactly excited about it.

For now, though, we need to focus on 2014 and our local and state elections, period.

who is defining "Liberal" as "Nader voter."

'Nader' is scapegoated time and again by people who don't want to admit that Dems who voted for Bush were far more to blame. Yet you never see threads being started that say 'Fuck the Dems who voted for Bush!'. It's always 'Fuck Nader and Nader voters!'

If you want to assign rank of who is really to blame for 2000's turnout, it's going to be something like #1 SCOTUS, #2 Dems voting Bush, #3 Katherine Harris and the purge machine, #4 Gore refusing to act human during his run, #5 Nader.

Nader shares some teensy amount of blame (and he was a complete and utter ass after the race, crowing about being a spoiler), but quite frankly, if he'd never run, the Repubs would have still found a way to cook the books, just as they did with him in the race.

The fascination with scapegoating Nader is denialism. Rather than facing up to the fact that the Dem candidate needs to act to win all of the base, centrist Dems (already lining up behind centrist Hillary) are simply looking to find a way to blame 'the Left' again, should their centrist candidate blow it by ignoring the folks on the left end of the base.

If we get a repeat of 2000, it will be because we run too centrist of a candidate, not because 'NADERRRRR!!!!!!!!!'

And is. They've made several partisan, horrible rulings including bush v gore.

Nader's votes tossed the election to Bush.

between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

The answer to your question is the preeminent cause for the coup of 2000 over everything else it was the corporate media.

Lol! Your agenda is showing.

Where are you getting your figure?

It's irrelevant how many conservative Democrats -- mostly Reagan Democrats -- voted for Bush. Or what other conservatives, like Harris, did.

Nader was the single PROGRESSIVE who did the most to toss the election. He was a person who supposedly shared progressive goals. And yet he actively worked against them to suit his own agenda.

the DLC, a Dem lobbyist, dem official, etc?

"It's irrelevant how many conservative Democrats -- mostly Reagan Democrats -- voted for Bush. Or what other conservatives, like Harris, did."

The hell it is. Do you WANT to live under a Republican government? Because you need to wake up and realize that government doesn't start and end with the Presidency. Harris and Bush were able to collude because the state was under Republican control. Don't ignore local and state elections is job number one, and vote in Democrats.

Job number two is learn to accept that progressives are part of the Democratic party, and we aren't going anywhere - deal with it.

should do anything to undermine the most viable progressive in a general election: which was always Al Gore and never Ralph Nader.

I brought myself and 4 others to the poll to vote for Gore. I'd do it again. And I sure as HELL will continue to bring Dems to the polls for state and local elections.

Should be. But I wouldn't expect too much from such simplistic thinkers.

The Nader-obsessed (14 fucking years!) have a vested interest in quashing any interest outside the duopoly.

As always, our hate and rage should be towards those who stole the election.

It is based on a Tim Wise piece that is full of holes. For example, Wise states that nationally, exit polls indicated that 47 percent of Nader voters would have voted for Gore if Nader had not been in the race, while 21 percent would have gone for Gore and 30 percent would have stayed home. However, in Florida, according to Wise, the exit poll data shows that Gore, Bush and stay-at-home would have split "almost equally" if Nader wasn't on the ballot. Leaving aside the rather substantial difference between the national result and what Wise says the Florida exit polls showed, the fact that he doesn't give the specific breakdown for Florida but instead uses teh vague term "almost equally" is interesting. How interesting? Well, if almost equally means Gore 34, Bush 33, stay-at-home 33, Gore picks up 900 plus more votes than Bush and wins the election. Could Gore have won the election by picking up more votes that went to Gore or Nader from particular demographic groups? Of course. But the fact is that, all other things being equal, the evidence is quite clear that Gore would have won if Nader hadn't been on the ballot.

I should add that there are other analyses that contend that exit polls show that only 25 percent of Nader voters would have voted for Gore in a Nader-less race, with 50 percent saying they'd have stayed home and the other 25 percent split between Bush and other candidates. These analyses like to say these numbers (which can't be squared with Wise's "almost equal" split between Gore, Bush, and stay-at-home) also show Bush would have won because the Bush and Gore would have split the votes of the Nader voters that would have come out to vote in a Nader-less race. But that ignores the fact that these analyses don't say Bush and Gore each would have gotten 25 percent of 97,588 votes cast for Nader. Gore would have gotten 25 percent (24,372) and Bush AND THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES would have gotten the other 25 percent. If those other 3rd party candidates represented only .68% of the Nader vote (which is the percentage of the vote that third party candidates got statewide), it would have meant Gore having 662 more votes from the Nader voters than Bush and, other things being equal, Gore would have won the state.

Arguing that Gore would have won the state even with Nader in the race if he had done this or that in terms of picking up votes from various constituencies is fine and dandy, but it doesn't change the fact that if Gore had done exactly what he did, but without Nader in the race, Gore would have won.

voted for Nader. I can't assuage their guilt, because I voted for Gore, so save your lectures for yourself and your fellows that voted for Nader.

I have no guilt about any of my votes over the years. A few regrets for holding my nose too many times, perhaps, but no guilt.

just to the people harping about how evil the left is and how we all voted for Nader, which is a talking point I'm damned sick of.

Not directed at you.

They are exactly saying that.

Hell, I can't help it if at least 3 of them have stepped up and said "I voted for Nader and now let me bash everyone that has ever thought of voting for Nader!"

I didn't vote for him, but apparently at least 3 DUers have by their own admission! If they are lying, take it up with them, I just took them at their word that they voted for the asshole.

and prefers to marginalize, insult and scapegoat us.

She's not running, you know.

Give it time.

All of this shit is about bullying Liberals into sitting down and shutting up while the Party moves to the right.

And anyone that supports that asshole can go fuck themselves also. Carry on.

The Gore Campaign threw those votes away in Florida.

I firmly believe if Al Gore had only ONCE looked to his Left and said,
"I hear your voices, and you are important to me.
Maybe NAFTA and De-Regulation isn't such a good thing for the Working Class.
I promise that YOU will have a voice in my administration!".
If Al had done that ONE TIME, he would have been president in 2000.

The Democratic Party had its polling information.
They KNEW how many votes would go to Nader if Gore simply ignored the Pro-LABOR voices on The Left, and decided they didn't need those votes to WIN.

And, they were RIGHT.
The election was decided by the Supreme Court,
not the people in Florida.


The Anti-LABOR, Free Trading, De-Regulating, Welfare Reforming, "The era of Big Government is Over" "Centrist" Clinton Administration CREATED Ralph Nader.

Gore could've told us, for example, that he'd don a pair of comfortable shoes and walk the picket lines with us, and we probably would've believed him. Or he could've said something like, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody," and people would've turned out in droves to support him.

I know it sounds naive, but that strategy has worked since.

,,,, well you know!,,,,,, geez!

Yay! Yet more attempts to shine up Nader's turd!!!

A large swath of the southern US refused to join "the party of Lincoln" for a very, very long time. So they remained nominally Democrats, but behaved like Republicans. It's where the whiny "why can't the parties get along like they used to?" came from - they got along because they actually were very similar.

A good chunk of them switched to the Republican party starting with the Civil Rights Act. But not all of them.

As a result, party affiliation is not a substitute for actual political leanings.

It is a preemptive strike to set your mind to the "outsiders or outliers are dangerous" meme...a preemptive strike against I presume Warren of Sanders.
Stick with Hillary because she is safe...so we are to believe.

sorta like spilled milk, but we keep doing it

Another corporate ass-kisser is safer than real and meaningful change.

Buchanan admitted he received far more votes from that county than he ever expected.

But really, how do you know who voted for whom? If these numbers are based on exit polling, we should remember that the actual vote totals didn't tally that well with the exit polls, which was part of what revealed the voting problems.

Oh and by the way... "Fuck Nader".

Nobody seems to remember that Harris threw out thousands of (mainly black) voter registrations, that Gore made the mistake not to ask for a whole recount, etc. Jebbie promised W to deliver and he did it in a totally illegal way. Yet that was never really investigated after the SCOTUS ruled ( also illegally). Remember: The loss for W would cause irrepairable damage to HIM, not the country.?
I voted for Gore, but not happily. But I resent this early warning to people at DU on't you dare to step out of line! This seems to be coming mostly from people who believe that HC's nomination is inevitable. I would like to suggest to look back at FDR, who preempted his more socially oriented opponents by turning LEFT!