Shhhhh…every dollar the republicans spend to prop up Nader in their misguided attempt to throw a monkey wrench into the democratic plans is one less they have to suppoprt their viable candidate.
If Gore carried Tenn .his home state, he would have won. Nader did not do it. If Nader shows any traction I will consider a vote for him.
No, no, come on, his losing his home state was obviously Nader’s fault. Well, Nader and people like you and me.
I have one question: we’re obviously talking about the popular vote. But didn’t Gore WIN the popular vote?
Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote. He lost Florida by a small margin and it has been blamed on a combination of Nader and Chads. Therefore Nader is responsible for the 8 years of Bush and not the fact that the Democrats could not nominate a charismatic candidate that inspired people.
Now however, it looks like Obama should win, overcoming the color of his skin, his youth and his name. He is inspirational and the Democrats should have nominated someone besides Kerry last time and Gore should have simply run a better campaign.
He never showed any charisma until after he lost in 2000.
Jim
Obiviously NJ voters choosing Nader is why Gore couldn’t carry his home state. Damn you!
Hell, maybe all those Gore votes were wasted and they should have voted for Nader. Is every vote not for the eventual winner wasted?
Christ, look at the last three Democratic front runners. Gore couldn’t beat Bush despite the fact that the dotcom bubble hadn’t burst yet and the economy looked good. Then after all Bush did to make himself an easy mark, Kerry’s campaign somehow became Gore 2.0 and Bush was re-elected. Now Clinton, the far and away front runner a year ago, is falling behind a more folksy Obama. Just like the Dems needed Bill Clinton to shake up them up nearly two decades ago, they need something to shake up the old guard. I just wonder if we’ll be looking back to the Clinton-Obama fighting as to why McCain won.
But hey, you can keep on blaming Nader if it makes you feel better. Hell, blame the Libertarians too.
Oh please. How did the Clinton Administration pay attention to terrorist threats, exactly? Bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan?
Just so we’re all on the same page, you guys know that the whole FL thing had nothing to do with hanging chads and confusing ballots and everything to do with illegally purging voter rolls and disenfranchising a large number of minority voters that most likely would have voted Democratic, right? I thought that this was common knowledge by now.
But too many of those votes were in the wrong state- such as Fla. If Nader had not split off even the few votes he did, Gore would have won Fla, and thus the election.
The USA is now well and truely fucked after two terms of Geo Bush (I don’t think it is possible to get out of the war deficit) . Nader is partly responsible for that.
Well that was a very reasonable statement. I think you got the wrong forum. 
Voting for Nader is kind of an anti vote. The dems and repubs are both in the pockets of corporations and moneyed interests. I think we need to go farther than either party will to get on the right track. This is no government for a pacifist.
I voted for Nader in 2000. I was 20 and idealistic and thought that we really need a third party. Like What Exit?, I just wanted to see him get his 5%, and never really thought he’d actually get elected.
Aside from that, those of you who are spewing your vitriol because those who voted for Nader actually voted for Bush, calm the fuck down. Look, I hate Bush just as much as you all do. I think he’s been a malignant embarrassment to the Office of the POTUS and the United States as a whole. I’ll even admit that I wish I never voted for Nader. But as Quartz said, this is a democracy and any U.S. citizen over the age of 35 is constitutionally guaranteed the right to run for President. Chastising those for voting for whom they wanted is anti-democratic at best; fascist at worst.
Gore didn’t lose solely because of Nader. Gore lost because of Nader, but also because he thought he was the shoo-in for the Presidency. We just came off of 8 fabulous Clinton years, right? He thought his campaign would be easy, and he didn’t work hard enough at it. As a result, he lost (though a mostly Republican Supreme Court didn’t help his matters).
Of course Gore would have carried his conservative home state by being more like Nader, why didn’t I think of that. :smack: I thought that he was too liberal for Tennessee, but obviously he wasn’t liberal enough.
Sometime I wonder how you guys are smart enough to breathe. What’s on the playlist of your iPod: “Breathe in, breathe out, …”?
You, out of the gene pool!
If the 2008 SDMB Understatement of the Year Awards are still open for nominations, I think we may have a winner.
I disagree, I think he was dead on.
A lot of us only remember his role as a spoiler in 2000. But people forget the remarkable crusading he accomplished in the 60’s and 70’s done for the benefit of all Americans. The trouble is, he became a characature of himself, becoming more insular and uncompromising to the extreme: he has no personal life and has given himself over to activism; which I think anyone would classify as unhealthy.
Whether you hate, love or are ignorant of the man, I strongly recommend the documentary An Unreasonable Man. It’s a riveting view that calls into view his admirable qualities as well as his lamentable.
PS: There were an ass-load of reasons Geoge Bush became president in 2000. To lay all the fault of Bush’s presidency (and it’s consequences) at Nader’s feet is as unreasonable as Ralph himself is.
Not all the fault, of course, but how can you argue that Nader wasn’t a significant factor?
Depending on how you define “significant,” I’m not. I am saying that there are other factors — many already mentioned in this thread — that are significant as well, including but not limited to:
[ul]
[li]Gore’s less-than-spectacular appeal vs. Bush’s affability[/li][li]Florida voting irregularities[/li][li]The Electoral College[/li][li]The Supreme Court decision in Bush vs. Gore[/li][/ul]
Don’t forget that popular vote does not select the President, the Electoral College does. And Nader received exactly 0 Electoral votes.
It’s also worth noting that Pat Buchanan’s run threatened to split the conservative vote as well. Nader simply had marginally more appeal to liberals that Buchanan had for conservatives.
God I fucking hate the Democratic Party. Entitled pieces of shit like the OP are why I don’t vote for Democrats.
(I mean, other than their total capitulation to the Republicans, their disregard for actual democracy, and their simultaneous corruption and incompetence).
Did anyone actual say that or are you just making shit up now to sustain your weak and petulant position?
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?
Who said Gore should be more like Nader? Who actually said that? Do you think anyone thinks Nader had a chance in 2000? I and others have tried to use small simple sentences to explain to you that Gore just was not a very good campaigner.
Who do you blame for Kerry losing? For that matter, how could he lose to a proven ass like Bush? I vote for Kerry and worried he was going to lose as I saw how terrible a campaigner he was.
This time I am actively campaigning in a small way for Obama. I still worry that he can lose to either HRC or McCain. A candidate needs to win voters over. He cannot run on just a good record.
Jim