Skip to main content

View Diary: Note to Ralph Nader... (126 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Completely wrong. (0+ / 0-)

    Al Gore lost Tennessee, simply because he didn't campaign at all in that state.

    You ignore West Virginia, which had gone Republican only 3 times in 100 years.

    You ignore New Hampshire.  

    And you fail to mention that Democratic congressional candidates won handily in many of the states that Gore lost. This easily disproves your assertion that the south swung to the right.

    No Nader voters that I know contend that Gore didn't run left enough in the south. What we recognize however, is that Gore barely campaigned at all in states like Tennessee and West Virginia, both of which would have won the election.

    Furthermore, your diagnosis utterly ignores the very plain that Al Gore won the popular election, and was the very clear winner of any number of sanctioned recounts in Florida after the election.

    You are obviously enjoying pointing the finger at those of us who tried to make this a better country, so I'll let you continue......

    "From each according to his faculties; to each according to his needs" - M. Bakunin

    by DJamesGoodwin on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:32:11 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Your ignorance of history is hilarious... (0+ / 0-)

      ...or perhaps you are just pretending to be stupid, because there is no non-stupid way to defend your position.  A hugely fundamental shift in the American political landscape that took place over a generation and resulted in the most profound regional change of party identification since the Civil War could have been reversed with a couple of campaign appearances?  No, no, you MUST be pretending you are this stupid -- in real life, no one could be this dumb and still have enough brains to breathe. In any event, Gore would have been more likely to make those campaign appearances if Nader's deliberate efforts to campaign in swing states hadn't forced Gore to put more of his time and resources in places like Florida than he otherwise might have done.

      What's weird about the Naderite clowns is that they openly campaigned in 2000 on the idea that the Democrats were insufficiently left and had to be punished for it -- that punishment being leftists voting for the Greens and thus costing the Democrats the election.  Yet having achieved that goal and becoming the first third party since the Bull Moose to genuinely effect the outcome of an election... the Nader clowns immediately washed their hands of their incredible victory.  I guess it gradually dawned on them that the rest of us weren't grateful.

      So spare us your self-congratulatory ode to how hard you're working to make this country a better place.  The blood of Iraq is on your hands, along with all the other horrors visited on America during the eight years your tactical allies ran the White House.  You don't give a shit about this country or this planet -- basking in your moral magnificence is your only true passion, and this country has paid plenty for your infantile self-indulgence.  That's not finger pointing -- that's reportage.

      •  You are a complete incompetent...... (0+ / 0-)

        Your overgeneralization, and name calling (might I add), are childish and inept. Clearly you are the one who has no grip on reality and Southern voting history.

        There are two clearly misguided points in your reply to me. The first is that you maintain that there was a large shift in voting preference in the South, which there was, of course - but you tell me that I'm ignorant because I expected that to change with a couple of campaign appearances....

        To respond, I have to point out that West Virginia voted Democratic in 1988, 1992, 1996, and has been majority Democratic on the State and Congressional level since the 1930's...... that is, until 2000, where Gore barely lost.

        But I'm the IDIOT still, right? I'm stupid, I guess.......

        Oh, then Tennessee. I willfully concede your point on Tennessee being primarily Republican for 40 years.... that was, until Clinton. Two elections went to Clinton, then the Dems won seats in 1998.

        According to various polls, Tennesseans would have voted for Clinton again, if he could have run in 2000. Yet they didn't vote for Gore. That's interesting, and I'm not sure what to take from it, other than an utterly inept campaign from Al Gore...

        You say Gore focused in Florida because of Nader? Well, that proves to me that you're the ignorant one. You have clearly no clue then......

        Gore campaigned in Florida, because in case you don't recall, GW Bush had a brother in that state, who just happened to be Governor. Do you remember that? Do you recall (by chance) that the Bush machine in Florida was the threat to Al Gore, not Ralph Nader?

        No you wouldn't remember that because your too busy ignoring fact, and positing ridiculous arguments against Nader and his supporters.

        If Ralph Nader did in fact cost Al Gore the election, I would be proud of that. Fact is, we didn't get the 5%, therefore there was little to be happy about. You cannot maintain that Ralph Nader cost a Gore victory, with a straight face.

        The numbers just don't add up, friend.

        I suggest that before you go on a public forum, with your nice little alias, and sharp tongue, that you read a bit, and study politics...... or at the very least perhaps you can just go to Wikipedia and get a lesson in voting patterns in the South since the Great Depression.

        You may learn a thing or two. In the process, perhaps you'll learn to accept that you're not always right, and those who disagree based on fact are not idiots or historical dotes.

        "From each according to his faculties; to each according to his needs" - M. Bakunin

        by DJamesGoodwin on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 08:28:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site