Skip to main content

View Diary: 95K Nader voters in FL "felt great" in 2000 (112 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nader didn't take votes from Gore (9+ / 0-)

    Nader got people to vote who otherwise wouldn't have.

    •  This notion (6+ / 0-)

      has received entirely too little play in this debate; thanks.

    •  Evidence for that? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JL, Deep Texan

      How many of the 95,000 in FL would have voted for Gore?

      The GOP: "You can always go to the Emergency Room."

      by Upper West on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:45:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  371 Votes (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Upper West, James Allen

        Give that Bush "won" Florida by 371 votes is it really that unreasonable to think that even just 1% of the Nader voters would have voted for Gore had Nader not been on the ballot?  All it would have taken was less than have that number to put Gore over the top.

        •  exactly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          the rationalizations for Nader voters are tortured.  It's true that any number of factors contributed to Gore's loss.  But 95,000 versus 537 (I think that was the final number) is a lot more certain than "if only Gore had not picked Lieberman."

          The GOP: "You can always go to the Emergency Room."

          by Upper West on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:58:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  537 (0+ / 0-)

            Thanks for the correction -- I'm not sure where I got 371.

            But my contention still stands.  537 represents less that 0.6% of Nader's FL vote and I'm sure that AT LEAST that would have voted for Gore had Nader not been an option.

      •  I have to have the evidence? (0+ / 0-)
        1. Gore won the state of Florida. The Supreme Court of the United States, not the people of Florida or the Judiciary system in Florida, elected George Bush. The US Congress decided to accept the electors sent by Florida. I don't know why some Democrats have such a hard time accepting this. The vote wasn't the problem. It was the counting of the vote. That's why the GOP sent paid operatives to disrupt the counting. That's why the GOP has stacked the Supreme Court with radical rightists.
        1. There were clearly procedural problems in Florida. Surely we've all seen the graphic where Pat Buchanan's vote magically spiked in Palm Beach County? In fact, the commentary from Buchanan and the Reform Party after the election was one of his better and more authentic commentaries in public life. This was one of the ways you knew the Bush team were the crazies. Pat Buchanan was making more rational arguments about our electoral system.
        1. Nader energized people. There was massive effort to get anyone and everyone who would even remotely consider voting for Gore to vote for Gore. Don't you remember things like Nader trader? The people who voted for Nader wanted something other than the stale corporatism offered by the Gore messaging.
        1. Nader didn't take 'swing' voters and 'independents' and 'centrists' and 'moderates', the people Gore's establishment strategists told him to go after. Nader went after folks to the left of the Democratic party. Now, Democratic officials may mock this concept, but that's where the great mass of undecided voters exist. Not between the GOP and the Dems, but to the 'left' of the Dems.
        1. Florida didn't cost Gore the election. Every state he lost cost Gore the election. Focusing on Florida because of the state's problems in counting its votes isn't legitimate criteria if you're interested in looking at the effect of Nader, which is only a consequence up to the vote. In fact, what happened in Florida between the vote and the inauguration made Nader look pretty sage about how weak-ass the Democrats are and how there's little difference between the parties and whatnot. It was like the DC Dems were trying to prove Nader correct.
        1. The Gore campaign participated in locking Nader out of the debates. That was a tactical error by Gore, not Nader.
        1. So, to get back to my original point, Nader appealed to people alienated by our two party system. What evidence do you have that Gore had a shot at these people? Democrats were doing everything they could to agree that Bush was a moderate and run as hard to the right as possible, to make as little differentiation as possible. This is a failure of the cesspool of pathetic corporate Dem strategists. What evidence do you have that Nader voters would have turned out for Gore in swing states? You're suggesting that running to the right is a way to engage leftists. I find that comically hilarious.

        In fact, I'd argue that Nader probably energized Democratic voters, too, to be excited about the process and to vote against George Bush. If you're going to say Nader took away x% of Gore voters, you've also got to say that Nader got y% of Gore voters to the polls. As Gore's total votes are much larger, it doesn't take a very large y value to make Nader's influence net positive, both for our political discourse and for the Dem's electoral chances in 2000.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (157)
  • Community (73)
  • Elections (44)
  • Environment (43)
  • Bernie Sanders (42)
  • 2016 (41)
  • Hillary Clinton (35)
  • Spam (35)
  • Culture (34)
  • Republicans (33)
  • Media (32)
  • Climate Change (32)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Labor (27)
  • Science (24)
  • Congress (24)
  • Law (24)
  • Education (24)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site