Skip to main content

View Diary: When Nader met Gore (169 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bottomline: had Nader not run,Gore would have won (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    N in Seattle, Alegre

    Nader voters would have split something like: Gore 46%, Bush 23% and 31% abstain (according to my preliminary estimates).

    Nader gave somewhat similar figures himself: Gore 38%, Bush 25%

    Even going by Nader's figures, that comes to about 390K vote margin for Gore over Bush among nader voters, I am sure that this includes enough people (in FL and NH) for Gore to win both FL and NH (and he would have been sworn-in with either one).

    I'll try to give a state by state breakdown once I find detailed  2000 exits polls.

    Such an exercise will be mostly for settling record purposes, not raking up the past.

    •  Doesn't the bottom line also include (3+ / 0-)

      the butterfly ballot, the Supreme Court, the Florida legislature, general stupidity, and so on?

      Mariva's Guide: A magablog of fun, useful, interesting stuff.

      by mariva on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 11:18:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Still Not Buying It (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        N in Seattle, mariva

        Those never would have become issues if Nader hadn't been on the ballot.

        Just can't get around that one pesky little fact.

        Bloggin' with a bar of soap and my car window IMPEACH -8.75 / -6.10

        by Alegre on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 11:54:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But they're all pesky, and all (0+ / 0-)

          symptomatic of our severe electoral problems.

          Mariva's Guide: A magablog of fun, useful, interesting stuff.

          by mariva on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:14:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

            You're missing the point.

            If Nader hadn't been on the FL ballot those things wouldn't have mattered.

            Period.

            Bloggin' with a bar of soap and my car window IMPEACH -8.75 / -6.10

            by Alegre on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:34:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Perhaps you're missing mine: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bherner

              If any of those elements had been different, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

              My point is that the Nader factor was one among a number of problems leading to the 2000 hostile takeover.

              Mariva's Guide: A magablog of fun, useful, interesting stuff.

              by mariva on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:47:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No I'm Not Missing Your Point (0+ / 0-)

                You're putting the horse before the cart.

                If Nader hadn't run these issues wouldn't have come into play.  Period.

                I don't know how to make that point more plainly or clearly.

                Bloggin' with a bar of soap and my car window IMPEACH -8.75 / -6.10

                by Alegre on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:44:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No need to be condescending, just because (0+ / 0-)

                  I disagree with you on this point.

                  Again, my point (in spelled-out format) is that:

                  • If Nader hadn't campaigned in swing states,
                  • If the butterfly ballot didn't exist,
                  • If O'Connor or one of the other Supreme Court 5 had swung the other way,
                  • If the Florida state legislature hadn't been so corrupt,
                  • Heck, if Gore himself had just been his own true self and not listened to the advice of terrible consultants with poor winning records (a la Crashing the Gate),

                  Gore would be president, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

                  All of these elements are important; the Nader factor was just one among them. (And I would argue that Gore ran a bad campaign before Nader got involved, if you're really interested in the chronologically first element.)

                  I could now conclude with, "Period. I don't know how to make that point more plainly or clearly," but that's no way to win friends and influence people.

                  Mariva's Guide: A magablog of fun, useful, interesting stuff.

                  by mariva on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:46:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Goodness (0+ / 0-)

                    No need to repeat everything for the 4th time here - I'm smart enough to have gotten in the first go-round.  It doesn't change the one simple fact though...

                    It wouldn't have been nearly that close if Nader hadn't run in such a swing state.  Gore would have won by enough of a margin where that other stuff wouldn't have come into play.

                    Period.

                    Face it - Nader knew what sort of an impact he'd have in the state and he still chose to go for a spot on the ballot - and then REPEAT lie after lie about how there's no difference between Gore & Bush.

                    He threw that election to Bush - for that I'll never forgive him.  He's an asshole - in my book he's totally undone all the good he did in the 70s (and yeah - I'm old enough to remember what he did back then).

                    Bloggin' with a bar of soap and my car window IMPEACH -8.75 / -6.10

                    by Alegre on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 02:24:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  It does (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mariva

        it further includes Clinton's scandals, and perhaps most jarringly, the corruption of the media.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site