# Nader In: Chance for Dopers to Elect McCain **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 24, 2008, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969 "2008-02-24T17:30:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/81 "2008-02-25T19:47:25Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] Does it matter if Nader voters own up to what the actual effect of their vote in 2000 was? Perhaps not, but I think history will repeat itself. Once the Democrats clean things up and get them on the right track, people will be more easily distracted by “values issues” and who’d be a good drinking buddy. It’ll be harder to get people to focus when things are better. I don’t want people who will actually vote to lose sight of the potential consequences of their votes. Of course, if things don’t go well, hold the Democrats responsible. I believe we need more Democrats, but I also believe we need better Democrats, too. [/QUOTE] You make a good point. Much better than Dan **Blather** who is aptly named. However, the parties do need a shaking up. It is very satisfying to see two candidates who are not pre-chosen by the powers in the party; are apparently going to be running against each other. After two weak candidates in a row, the Democrats look like they have said enough is enough. We don’t want your choice push down our throats, we’ll take a better choice. Obama has energized people. Hillary, unlike Bill is the establishment now. She had a good chance of losing and giving the Republicans 4 more year to really load the Supreme Court beyond hope. On the Republican side, I see moderate and liberal Republicans voting for McCain to try to wrest control back for the Theo-Cons and Neo-Cons that stole the party. Rudy made a terrible mistake in his campaign, the same one I keep accusing Gore of having made. He did not run as himself, he ran as someone to broadly appeal to his party and failed (a lot worse than Gore). Rudy needed to run as himself, he probably still would have lost, but he would probably have made a better showing. Jim ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/82 "2008-02-25T19:52:09Z")
[QUOTE=Otto] Was it a _major_ concern? No. It was a consideration, as a lot of things were considerations to greater or lesser degrees. The overriding concern for me in 2000 was that George W Bush would make for a disastrous president. In my most fevered dreams I had no idea just how big a disaster he would be. [/QUOTE] Well that might be the truest statement anyone ever said. Please believe me when I say it has exceeded my worst nightmares. He has even managed to renew hostilities with Russia, his Pop has to be really fuming over that part. And yet, that flies under the radar with all the other shit he has done. This man makes Nixon, Carter & Reagan\* look wonderful. I will stand guilty of seriously underestimating how much harm he could do. I am to this day dumbfounded that he got re-elected. This should not have been possible. Jim - Please note, I actually liked Reagan, but I have seen and heard too many Liberals and Democrats make the point he is far worse than Reagan. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/83 "2008-02-25T20:20:41Z")
By any stretch of our imaginations, can we say that the Nader candidacy was any help? Was there any conceivable scenario wherein a Nader candidacy assisted in removing this band of rabid jackals from power? The best that may be said is that Nader was not instrumental in assuring the re-election of the Man Who Fell Up. Well, whoopity fuck de doo! Why would a patriot take a chance like that? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/84 "2008-02-25T20:24:08Z")
[QUOTE=What Exit?] I am to this day dumbfounded that he got re-elected. This should not have been possible. [/QUOTE] Anything is possible when you’re friends with the people who program the voting machines. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/85 "2008-02-25T20:27:22Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] By any stretch of our imaginations, can we say that the Nader candidacy was any help? Was there any conceivable scenario wherein a Nader candidacy assisted in removing this band of rabid jackals from power? The best that may be said is that Nader was not instrumental in assuring the re-election of the Man Who Fell Up. Well, whoopity fuck de doo! Why would a patriot take a chance like that? [/QUOTE] Well it was a double failure, most people I know that voted for Nader thought we had a chance to get the Green Party a 5% vote. This seemed very important at the time. Now it does seem Quixotic. I will stress again, the not all Nader voters were Democrats. I [del]am[/del]\*was a Republican. Many others were either actual Green Party members or independents that did not feel any reason to vote for Gore. I would like to see a really scientific poll that really broke down the Nader Voters in 2000. I always hear that most would have voter for Gore, but I have never actually seen any proof of this. Jim - I am still trying to get use to this independent tag. [QUOTE=Otto] Anything is possible when you’re friends with the people who program the voting machines. [/QUOTE] 😃 Actually, the scary part is it might well be true. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/86 "2008-02-25T20:56:52Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] I often hear it said that Gore should have run a better campaign. How so? What specifically did he do so poorly with? Recall, also, that he was up against a national media that focused every bit of attention it could on repetition of stupid, distracting and fictitous claims about Gore while giving scarcely a moment’s pause to what **Bridget Burke** is talking about: obvious concerns about the suitability of Bush for office. So what should he have done differently? If you can proclaim that he lost because of what he did, surely you can point to some specifics? [/QUOTE] Gore actually had a record as a centrist Democrat from the South, and the nation was coming off of eight years where a similarly positioned Democrat was pretty popular. Gore should have run on his own record and simultaneously put his wife and daughters front and center - strongly implying that the country would get Clinton-era policies from him while not getting any embarrassing personal scandals. Mind you, I’m not a Clinton supporter in the least - but I can tell you this approach likely would have worked. It would have been, at the least, hard to run against. Gore chose to run as some weird kind of populist, though, and he never was able to pull this off convincingly. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/87 "2008-02-25T21:28:38Z")
[QUOTE=What Exit?] I would like to see a really scientific poll that really broke down the Nader Voters in 2000. I always hear that most would have voter for Gore, but I have never actually seen any proof of this. [/QUOTE] I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this, but here is what Nader said on [Meet the Press](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23319215/) yesterday: > [@](#): > > And I might add that Solon Simmons and other scholars–he teaches at George Mason–have shown that by pushing Gore to take more progressive stands, he got more votes than the votes he allegedly–were withdrawn from for the Green party. Twenty-five percent of my vote, according to a Democratic pollster, exit poll, would’ve gone to Bush. Thirty-nine percent would’ve gone to Gore and the rest would’ve stayed home. Every major–every third party in Florida got more votes than the 537 vote gap. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/88 "2008-02-25T21:30:55Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this, but here is what Nader said on [Meet the Press](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23319215/) yesterday: [/QUOTE] If true, that would kind of take the wind out of this pitting. Thankyou, Jim ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/89 "2008-02-25T21:41:24Z")
CarnalK, I never thought I would say this but you are becoming irrelevant by the minute. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/90 "2008-02-25T22:48:23Z")
[QUOTE=What Exit?] If true, that would kind of take the wind out of this pitting. [/QUOTE] How do you figure? Nader got 2,883,105 votes in 2000. This is saying that if he’d stayed out of the campaign Gore would have picked up another approximately 1.12 million votes to Bush’s approximately 721,000. I find it inconceivable that the addition of that many more votes to Gore’s total would not have sufficiently shifted the EC results. Now if that data were broken down by state we could possibly get a clearer picture. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/91 "2008-02-25T22:50:21Z")
[QUOTE=What Exit?] If true, that would kind of take the wind out of this pitting. Thankyou, Jim [/QUOTE] I wouldn’t accept that without verifying it. My guess is that the polling numbers are accurate, but anyone claiming to know how many votes Gore would’ve gotten had he taken different positions politically is making some pretty big leaps. Anyway, if you’re really interested, I’m sure a little googling with that guy’s name will turn up some stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2008, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/92 "2008-02-25T23:33:00Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this, but here is what Nader said on [Meet the Press](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23319215/) yesterday: [/QUOTE] I don’t quite see where Nader is denying the charge there? He claims 25% of his votes would have gone to Bush, and 39% would have gone to Gore. That’s a 14% difference between Bush and Gore. 14% of 97,488 is… 13,648 votes? Which is more than 537 votes, isn’t it? Somebody help please? Math is hard. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/93 "2008-02-26T00:01:42Z")
[QUOTE=askeptic] CarnalK, I never thought I would say this but you are becoming irrelevant by the minute. [/QUOTE] That is a bizarre comment. Have I turned my back on my roots and you are now a disillusioned fan? Have we talked before? But it’s not worth hijacking the thread to find out so I’ll live with the mystery, if it’s all the same. ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/94 "2008-02-26T00:52:20Z")
[QUOTE=Jolly Roger] Damn. Tell us how you really feel! [/QUOTE] My vocabulary is inadequate for the task. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/95 "2008-02-26T00:56:53Z")
[QUOTE=Terrifel] I don’t quite see where Nader is denying the charge there? He claims 25% of his votes would have gone to Bush, and 39% would have gone to Gore. That’s a 14% difference between Bush and Gore. 14% of 97,488 is… 13,648 votes? Which is more than 537 votes, isn’t it? Somebody help please? Math is hard. [/QUOTE] The way I saw it, he had 2 points. First, he claims that every 3rd party candidate got more than 537 votes, so any of them could’ve been a “spoiler”. Second, he claims that only a few of his votes would be net Gore (as you calculated). However, he also claims (and this is where I’m suspicious) that his being in the race forced Gore to take more progressive stances and therefore netting Gore more “extra” votes than he would’ve gotten had he, Nader, not been in the race. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/96 "2008-02-26T01:18:05Z")
[QUOTE=What Exit?] Asshole. … Do you actually know how to craft an intelligent argument or do you just make assumptions and run with them all the time? Now to much more intelligent posters on your side of the debate. [/QUOTE] Yes, I guess you’re right. I need to make intelligent arguments like you. > [@](#): > > With this and your next post, you have proven that you are the whiny piece of shit I thought you were from your silly Op. Do you blame others for everything that goes wrong in your own life? ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/97 "2008-02-26T01:20:34Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] The way I saw it, he had 2 points. First, he claims that every 3rd party candidate got more than 537 votes, so any of them could’ve been a “spoiler”. Second, he claims that only a few of his votes would be net Gore (as you calculated). However, he also claims (and this is where I’m suspicious) that his being in the race forced Gore to take more progressive stances and therefore netting Gore more “extra” votes than he would’ve gotten had he, Nader, not been in the race. [/QUOTE] So… he’s claiming he actually helped Gore? By “pushing Gore to take more progressive stands,” Nader forced him to attract votes against his will? If it weren’t for Nader’s unsolicited aid, Gore would have lost even more than he ultimately did? That is an extraordinary campaign philosophy, I have to say. I guess he’s hoping to help out the same way in this election? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/98 "2008-02-26T01:49:31Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] Oh please. How did the Clinton Administration pay attention to terrorist threats, exactly? Bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan? [/QUOTE] [Here’s](http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm) a detailed discussion of the transition, or lack of transition, between the efforts of the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. Clarke has made clear that the Bush administration completely back-burnered all of the efforts that had been going on under Clinton. > [@](#): > > CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals’ meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting. > > ROEMER: So does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group as you had previously done? > > CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn’t meet urgently in January or February. Then when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of Al Qaida as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan, and launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address Al Qaida in the context of all of those inter-related issues. That process probably ended, I think in July of 2001. So we were ready for a principals meeting in July. But the principals calendar was full and then they went on vacation, many of them in August, so we couldn’t meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/99 "2008-02-26T01:58:48Z")
[QUOTE=Terrifel] So… he’s claiming he actually helped Gore? By “pushing Gore to take more progressive stands,” Nader forced him to attract votes against his will? If it weren’t for Nader’s unsolicited aid, Gore would have lost even more than he ultimately did? That is an extraordinary campaign philosophy, I have to say. I guess he’s hoping to help out the same way in this election? [/QUOTE] Maybe. I think you’d have to look at the stuff by that professor he was talking about to see how believable that story line is. I’m just telling you what I heard on Meet the Press, not saying I agree with him. Frankly, I don’t really care. I’m not into reliving the 2000 election every 4 years and pining about what might have been. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2008, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969/100 "2008-02-26T02:34:57Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Maybe. I think you’d have to look at the stuff by that professor he was talking about to see how believable that story line is. [/QUOTE] Oh, I’m pretty sure I have a rough idea of how believeable it is right now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nader-in-chance-for-dopers-to-elect-mccain/438969.md?page=6)