Ralph Nader Was Indispensable To The Republican Party

[enid602]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
11/11/2013 05:45 pm ET | Updated Jan 23, 2014
Eric Zuesse
Investigative historian

"Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.
Furthermore, Karl Rove and the Republican Party knew this, and so they nurtured and crucially assisted Nader’s campaigns, both in 2000 and in 2004. On 27 October 2000, the AP’s Laura Meckler headlined “GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads.” She opened: “Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president [Mr. Gore]. ... ‘Al Gore is suffering from election year delusion if he thinks his record on the environment is anything to be proud of,’ Nader says [in the commercial]. An announcer interjects: ‘What’s Al Gore’s real record?’ Nader says: ‘Eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken.’” Meckler’s report continued: “A spokeswoman for the Green Party nominee said that his campaign had no control over what other organizations do with Nader’s speeches.” Bush’s people - the group sponsoring this particular ad happened to be the Republican Leadership Council - knew exactly what they were doing, even though the liberal suckers who voted so carelessly for Ralph Nader obviously did not."

Thank goodness the Republican Party no longer follows these cheap tactics. Thank goodness democrats are not quite so gullible this time around.

[liberalhistorian]

1. Yes, I completely agree and it still

infuriates me that some still cannot see the tremendous damage he did in 2000 and that there is, indeed, quite a bit of difference between the parties. However, you know how people get around here about that, so IBTL.

[eniwetok]

21. Of Course... the Dems Deserve Votes They Don't Earn

I voted for Nader in 96 and 2000. Of course since I live in Mass... it doesn't matter because that antidemocratic abomination called the EC would give all the state's votes to Gore... my second choice.

But I really resent the arrogance that somehow Gore DESERVED the votes of even those that preferred Nader... to compensate for the fact that we have an antiquated, antidemocratic system which even the liberal Dems don't want to reform. After all, we can't expect real reforms to EVER come from the GOP.

So at what point do Nader voters start to see those liberal Dems as oppressors denying them what SHOULD be a right in any morally legitimate democracy... the right to vote one's conscience and to get representation?

[pnwmom]

23. The votes of 95000 Florida Nader voters DID matter. And Nader refused to limit

his campaigning to states like Massachusetts.

The progressive who DESERVES the votes is the one with the best chance of beating the Rethug. Period. And that was never Nader, who wasn't even competing in all the states -- but chose to campaign the hardest in swing states like Florida.

[eniwetok]

24. again you're blaming Nader instead of a defective system

Leaving aside I have no idea whether what you claim is true... IT DOESN'T MATTER! In a morally legitimate democracy any citizen is FREE to run for president... and any citizen is FREE to vote for whom they choose. If the electoral and political systems are so antiquated and antidemocratic they can't properly measure the consent of the governed to determine who received that consent... then it's THE SYSTEM'S FAULT.

But when have even the most liberal Dems ever wanted to reform our antidemocratic system? No, they'd rather demand voters vote Democratic even if those voters may not want to give Dems their consent to govern.

Don't you see the arrogance here?

[pnwmom]

32. Nader knew that any win required 270 electoral votes, and he purposely ran anyway,

in a successful effort to undermine Al Gore.

He didn't have a chance of winning himself, because he was only running in a fraction of the states. All he could do was hurt the other progressive.

Don't you see his arrogance?

He should have put his efforts toward getting a Constitutional amendment, if he thought our system was the problem. Since he didn't, he became part of the problem when he deliberately helped turn the election toward Bush.

He said that Bush winning wouldn't be a bad outcome, because it would hurry along the revolution. Yeah, we all saw how well that worked out.

[eniwetok]

66. Gore lost for many reasons... including himself

There is no one reason Gore lost... and the constant blaming of Nader by some liberal Dems says more about them than history. Why not blame Gore for not running a better campaign? For instance he could have let Clinton to campaign for him. What about all those Dems who voted for Bush? Why didn't Gore try to offer Nader or someone like him a position in his cabinet? I would have loved to see Robert Reich back as Sec of Labor.

And where are the liberal Dems... those self-proclaimed defenders of Democracy, pushing for any amendment to abolish the EC... reform the amendment process which is so absurd it allows states with just 4% of the population to block ANY amendment? No, it's all Nader's fault. Right?

Democracy is about the moral legitimacy of government... and yet I don't see liberal Dems EVER pushing for reforming what's essentially an antidemocratic and virtually reformproof federal system... or trying to bring proportional representation to states so people can vote their conscience and get representation for their beliefs. The current system is based on too many voters holding their noses as they vote for the lesser of the evils.... and up to 49.9% of the votes cast for the election loser meaning nothing. I see too many liberal Dems demanding people vote Democratic even if those voters don't believe the party deserves their vote.

[pnwmom]

79. Nader was the only PROGRESSIVE who deliberately caused Gore to lose thousands of votes.

Last edited Thu Apr 7, 2016, 04:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Katherine Harris was on the opposite team.

Individual voters who either made mistakes with the ballots or had stopped voting Democratic decades ago controlled only their individual votes.

Gore made mistakes, but he didn't deliberately try to lose.

But Nader, with his eyes wide open, deliberately took steps to damage Gore's chances and win 95000 Florida votes. And he and his followers should admit that.

With regard to changing the Amendment process, what has Bernie been doing about that? Why are you only blaming liberal Dems? The tea party would also love to make it easier to Amend the constitution, and prudent people know that could be putting a dangerous weapon into their hands.

[eniwetok]

87. I already answered...

"With regard to changing the Amendment process, what has Bernie been doing about that? Why are you only blaming liberal Dems?"

I already answered this question over 3 hours ago. Try reading responses to your posts.

[pnwmom]

90. No you didn't. You blamed the liberal Dems and let Bernie off the hook. nt

[eniwetok]

92. long history of criticizing Bernie on this

I responded to one of your other posts when you made the comment about VT not deserving the power has... but make up your mind... you started talking about Nader... then switched to Bernie.

Of course I don't know if Bernie even thinks in terms of what a real democracy would look like. I suspect like most libs, it's simply a blindspot... that he's simply bought into the official rationalizations for our system.

Pushing for real democratic reforms to our federal system is an issue I've been writing about for close to 20 years. But it's not the topic of this thread.

I know of NO liberal Dem who seeks ANY core changes to our federal system and my experience has been they, almost without exception, buy into the idea that those who live in small states deserve more power to "protect" themselves... that is they buy into antidemocratic government while wearing democracy on their sleeve. Bernie is no different. He may be an economic and social progressive but he's NOT a political progressive.

Here's an old post of mine from 2010 at the Thom Hartmann forum

Bernie Sanders vs Democracy

Liberals wear democracy on their sleeve as does the Right the flag. Yet I see no attempt to even define democracy which was probably best summed up by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence as a theory of morally legitimate government by which it derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed. The political battles at the Constitutional Convention simply did not provide that government in that the antidemocratic features of the Constitution can actually permit minority rule. But to make this worst our system was not just antidemocratic (with demographic changes are making it more so) but virtually reform proof. To make matters even worse, our dysfunctional electoral system created a two party system which punishes citizens for voting their conscience leading to a intellectually braindead political debate.

In this dysfunctional and reform proof context, few think of making fundamental changes to the system and prefer to tinker with reforms. Liberals who claim a monopoly on democracy, and we see it in so many names of Liberal activist groups, are reduced to lame proposals like Motor Voter, Election Day holidays, getting rid of electronic voting, etc all of which might help on the margins while ignoring the BIG picture of reforming our Constitution.

Which brings me to Bernie Sanders... and even Thom, both of whom I respect for their Progressive economic views. But when it comes to democracy, Bernie is just another Liberal seemingly mired in the system. Bernie is now a member of perhaps the most antidemocratic legislative body on the Planet yet he never talks of reforming it.

What is behind this seeming political schizophrenia?

At some point Liberals MUST deal with the corrupting nature of US federalism. Bernie can't talk about real democracy because to do is to suggest a low population state like his Vermont be stripped of political power in Washington which from a truly democratic perspective they do NOT deserve. No senator or congressperson from a small population state can propose REAL democratic reforms because their state would never elect or reelect them.

It is the nature of our system to undermine democracy and in that political vacuum, money rules.

[eniwetok]

25. 16 YEARS have gone by... so where are the Dems pushing for democratic government?

So in the 16 year since election 2000... where have the Dems begun a systematic campaign to abolish the EC which was the reason Bush, REJECTED by the voters, was installed as president. Sure, there's the Popular Vote campaign... but it really reflects the cowardice of Dems to confront and debate the absurdly antidemocratic nature of our federal system... and instead find some clever way around it. And in doing so they'll leave intact the other antidemocratic absurdities of our system... an amendment formula that lets states with a mere 4% of the US population block any amendment... and the Senate where states with a mere 18% of the US population gets 52% of the seats.

[pnwmom]

34. I don't know. Where is Bernie on that? Is he pushing on a Constitutional amendment? No, and you want

to know why?

Because tiny Vermont has a disproportionate amount of power under the current system. All the low population states do.

[eniwetok]

61. exactly!

Of course I don't know if Bernie even thinks in terms of what a real democracy would look like. I suspect like most libs, it's simply a blindspot... that he's simply bought into the official rationalizations for our system.

[kaleckim]

85. Weird view of democracy there

If I am on the left, I owe your party my vote without them earning it? This mindset is what has radicalized people. If the Democrats don't realize that they have to earn the left's vote, they're toast. How is it a bad thing for the left to do things to demand your party support policies that benefit working people and not what it has done since at least Clinton, pass policies that benefit the rich, banks and large corporations? The Socialist Party was getting about 6% of the vote in the early 20th century. Does that outrage you?

Guess what, politicians show respect for groups by fearing them. Many Republicans fear the Tea Party, which is a sign of respect. The Democrats haven't feared the left for decades, because on the left within the party really doesn't force them to do anything. Ultimately, if they are less bad than the Republicans, they'll hold their nose and vote for them regardless. So, why would Democrats really fear the left? I wouldn't. I want the left to matter nationally, and it should given how popular its policies are. Well, the time is passing where the Democrats can take the left for granted. Deliver the goods or piss off, that is where I am at with either party. Things have been too bad for too long to go on like this forever. There has to be a breaking point.

[dr60omg]

2. By that logic Clinton should thank Perot

Remember Ross Perot? Well, George Bush (the father) was popular but then Perot ran against him making the race a three way. He was the third party candidate who had the most votes ever ... So, people should stop playing this game

There are a lot of things that cost the election in 2000 can you name the other problems?

P.S. Name the three top vote getting independents who ran for the Presidency of the US?

[enid602]

5. I think we should all thank H. Ross Perot

But I don't know if the DNC actively promoted H. Ross Perot.

PS: I would say H. ross Perot, Ralph Nader and George Wallace.

[Major Nikon]

17. The political dynamics were much different

There's two basic problems with the theory of Perot as a spoiler.

Before Perot re-entered the race in October, Clinton was up 21 points on Bush. It's very unlikely Bush would have made up that deficit in the few weeks prior to the election even if Perot wouldn't have re-entered.

Exit polls showed Perot took as many votes from Clinton as Bush, with about a quarter saying they would have stayed home.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

46. George HW Bush was NOT popular

Especially with Republicans.

The economy had stalled and he went back on his "No new taxes" pledge. Perot supporters were largely Republicans and conservative Indys who never would have bothered showing up to vote for Bush.

[Democat]

60. We are Democrats, if Perot helped Clinton, then great

What's the problem?

[eniwetok]

64. do you REALLY want so bad...

When Clinton was "elected" I was elated that we were finally out of the GOP dark ages. But do you really want power that badly that you're willing to settle for a president that did NOT get a majority of the vote? Isn't that the antithesis of democratic principles? After all, that's also how we got Bush and look at the damage the Bush Junta did to the nation and the mess he created in the mideast.

[ecstatic]

70. Why did you put elected in quotes?

Are you sure you're on the right correct site?

[eniwetok]

73. Clinton got about 43% of the vote

I subscribe to the simple test of the moral legitimacy of government set forth in the Declaration Of Independence.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Just curious... do you have a problem with that standard?

Elections are supposed to be the yardstick by which we measure that consent... but our system is incapable of performing this simple task in plurality elections. So winning a plurality isn't really receiving the consent of the majority even if the election results are manipulated through the EC.

In elections such as for president we need two key reforms... to abolish the EC so all votes weigh the same... and to institute Instant Runoff Voting so in the case of plurality elections, no one wins without getting the consent of at least 50% +1.

The problem with the EC should be obvious. The weight of any vote depends on state residence. So the vote of any citizen in WY weighs 3.5x the vote of any voter in CA. In 2000 the vote of anyone in Bush's FL lead weighed 1000x that of any voter in Gore's national lead.

[ecstatic]

74. Yes, I have a problem with that standard if it means setting

women and minorities back decades.

[eniwetok]

80. I have no idea what you even mean

How is insuring no one wins an election without a majority of votes, the central CORE VALUE in democracy, discrimination against women and minorities? Arguably it was ANTIdemocratic government that did that... which is why it took so long for slaves to be freed and get the vote, and women as well. And it also took some key voting rights cases like Reynolds vs Sims to dismantle vote weighting/dilution schemes in the South.

Are you suggesting we extend what's essentially affirmative action for voters who live in small population states, giving them a bigger vote than they deserve, to select social groups?

[ericson00]

88. Perot did not cost Bush 1992; he helped Bush avoid a landslide loss

National Exit Polls:

If Mr. Perot had not been on the ballot, 38 percent of his voters said, they would have voted for Gov. Bill Clinton, and 38 percent said they would have voted for President Bush.

Exit polls and electoral college:

The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot's absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush "margin" without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.

For Bush to have won the EC, he'd have " target="_blank">needed to win nearly every state he lost by less than 5%, which would be impossible given his sub-40 job approvals on election day 1992, and the fact he'd actually have needed to pick up Wisconsin, which he lost in 1988.

Bush Sr.'s sub-40% job approval near and on the election was similar to Carter in 1980, or his son in 2008 (when his party lost the WH) and LBJ in 1968 (when his party lost the WH) and far lower than Reagan in 1984, Nixon 1972, Clinton in 1996, or tossup races (with results that would be MoE in a poll, between 45-49%) like Bush 2004, Ford 1976, Obama 2012 (2/3 of those were re-elected).


When Perot wasn't in the race, Bush was losing by a lot more and near the 37% he got anyway; Clinton was far ahead:


Perot wasn't even a conservative; he was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and to Clinton/Bush's left on trade. After all, Bernie Sanders accepted a gift from Perot.


Compare to Nader:

According to exit polls, 47 percent of Nader voters would have gone for Gore, 21 percent for Bush if it had been a two-man race.

[davidn3600]

3. Gore also lost his home state

That wasn't Nader's fault.

[WhiteTara]

9. Electronic voting machines

[eniwetok]

27. prove it!

So your claim is Gore lost his home state due to election fraud?

PROVE IT.

Why not admit the obvious... that Gore didn't run that good of a campaign?

[PDittie]

75. Not in Florida

Butterfly ballots, Palm Beach County, Theresa LePore, etc. Nader had nothing to do with those.

Nader also didn't force 300,000+ registered FL Democrats to vote for Bush.

http://www.salon.com/2000/11/28/hightower/

Kindly note that Jim Hightower wrote that before the SCOTUS stopped the recount in FL and handed the presidency to Dim Son.

That's three better reasons than to keep scapegoating Nader and the Green Party sixteen years after the fact.

[brush]

10. It's a red state, you know. And he actual got more votes that Bush, but thanks to Nader . . .

we ended up with two wars and a busted economy and housing crash.

And btw, Nader lost his own state as well — if he was even on its ballot.

[Docreed2003]

33. Point of clarification...

In 2016, yes, TN is a very red state. Not so in 2000. It wasn't until the last portion of the campaign that Gore even paid attention to TN, and I say that as a very active Gore supporter in Memphis at the time. Gore brought much excitement to Memphis late in the campaign and could have tapped in to so much more in Memphis and Nashville if he had tried, although he could never have carried East Tn. If the Gore campaign had made a stronger push in middle and west TN, he could have won the state. Now, what used to be democratic strong holds have been taken over by the Tea Party types, largely, I feel, because the state and national Democratic Party chose to ignore the concerns of the average Tennessean. Just my take as someone who lived through it.

[LiberalElite]

14. Gore also didn't fight the Supreme Court decision

He was like Oh, ok. and that was it.

[lame54]

4. Nader Blame Syndrome...

Help us find a cure

[merrily]

6. Perhaps a telethon, where people donate facts instead of $$? It's a thought!

[lame54]

8. Call Sarah McClachlan

[enid602]

12. Sarandon

Or better yet, Susan Sarandon

[WhiteTara]

7. Was? Still is. nt

[davidn3600]

11. This was 16 years ago. It's time to move on.

Sorry, but it is what it is. You can't change history.

There is always going to be more than 2 people on a ballot and people have a right to vote however the heck they want. I'm not going to bash people who voted for Nader. Why? Because those people hated both Bush and Gore. To those people, it didn't matter who won between those two. I understand you think it's crazy to vote that way. But you know what, a lot of people think it's crazy the way you are voting for whoever the Democrat happens to be.

Not everyone in America has the same political opinions as you. People have a right to vote for the Republican, the Democrat, the 3rd party guys, or even not at all. That's democracy.

[enid602]

13. bern

And yet Bernie bases his candidacy on the fact that Hill voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Maybe he should be blaming Nader. and Susan Sarandon.

[BlueMTexpat]

16. +1! eom

[LiberalElite]

15. I voted for Nader because the Democratic Party went too far to the right under Bill Clilnton nt

[eniwetok]

22. I was always against NAFTA and WTO for China

I was always against NAFTA and in 92 I voted Perot for this issue alone. Still being pissed off about NAFTA and then Clinton's support for China's entry into the WTO... I voted for Nader in 96 and 2000.

[Maru Kitteh]

26. Jesus H. Christ on a trailer hitch

How did that fucking BUSH thing work out for you?

[eniwetok]

29. Name the other nations where election LOSERS "win" elections?

Thanks for proving my contention that liberal Dems would prefer to blame voters and Nader... BOTH WHO HAD A RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY DID... and give that antidemocratic abomination called the EC a free pass.

BTW, it didn't matter who I voted for since I live in Mass.

[Maru Kitteh]

40. The fact that your vote "didn't matter" is the BIGGEST bone I have to pick with our system

And still your deflection remains completely unimpressive.

[Skittles]

43. I agree with this assessment

Nader was easily the most senseless factor in getting Bush installed into the White House

[MFM008]

53. lol

What DOES the H stand for, Ive always wondered.

[Firebrand Gary]

55. You SHOULD be banned from DU immediately!

[eniwetok]

62. thanks for a perfect example

Thanks for that perfect example of the arrogance I find many liberal Dems to have... that they've bastardized the concept of democracy to EXCLUDE a person's right to vote their conscience and get representation for what they believe.

[Eric Zuesse]

98. But my article documented that in voting third-party you were being suckered by Repub. mega-donors.

You were failing to vote for Al Gore, who was committed against global warming and who in 2002 gave an impassioned speech against invading Iraq. Do you really feel proud to have been doing what Republican mega-donors paid Nader to fool liberal suckers to do -- to not vote for Gore?

[VOX]

31. No, we can't change history; but why repeat it?

Who wants to live the Bush years again? (Or worse?) The world is still in majorturmoil from that wonderful time the keys were handed to the GOP. And no bullshit about Gore being the same as Bush, that would be an outright lie.

Nader voters *did* give us Bush -- not via Florida, but via New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes (which, had Gore won, would have rendered Florida moot):
Bush: 273,559
Gore: 266,348
Difference: 7,211
Nader votes: 22,198

If only a little over 1/3 of those Nader voters could have swallowed their pride just a bit, then...no Bush. No Cheney. No Rumsfield. No phony war. No torture, etc., etc. NO RW SUPREME COURT JUDGES.

Sometimes the lesser of two evils is just that. Yes, let's move on, but with the lesson that scorched earth politics hurts far too many people. And badly.

[enid602]

39. yuck

Who wants to live the Bush years again? (Or worse?) Yuck.

[KG]

18. I lulz'd

[eniwetok]

19. Goddamn it... STOP THE NADER BASHING!!!

Goddamn it... I get tired of this Nader bashing. Leaving aside that Gore ran a poor campaign in 2000... in a well functioning democracy EVERYONE has the right to run for president... and EVERYONE has the right to vote their conscience.

DOES ANYONE CONTEST THIS FACT???

If the system is so antiquated and defective to deal with this and get to a majority consensus candidate... then IT'S NOT THE CANDIDATE'S NOR THE VOTER'S FAULT.

Liberal Dems pretend they have a monopoly on democracy and yet when push comes to shove... I find most of them to be an intolerant lot who seem to believe that the Democratic Party... the party that stands the way of real democratic reforms to our antidemocratic system... deserves the votes of those who disagree with the Dems.

Stop blaming Nader for your refusal to reform or defective electoral and political systems.

[Skittles]

44. no Nader, no Bush - it is a fact

they can both FUCK themselves

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

48. Sorry (and I know you're not)

But Nader was a useful idiot who played his part, in addition to butterfly ballots, shitty machines in Dade County, Diebold and the Scalia court.

[eniwetok]

91. Nader was invaluable

Our two party system is braindead enough. When the two major parties refuse to bring up certain issues... hell, they don't even acknowledge them, it's invaluable for someone on the left to do so. Just look at how much influence Bernie has had.

Any morally legitimate democracy would allow anyone to exercise a citizen's right to run for office.... and allow any citizen the right to vote their conscience.... and not let a person REJECTED by the People "win" an election.

[baldguy]

97. Nader doesn't get bashed enough.

[eniwetok]

20. AND STOP BLAMING THE SUPREME COURT!!

Yes the right wingers on the Supreme Court acted despicably in 2000. But push come to shove... what they did was let that antidemocratic abomination called the EC do its dirty work... and because of that any voter in Bush's FL lead weighed 1000x that of any voter in Gore's national lead.

Maybe it's times liberal Dems got their act together and insisted that there not just be one person one vote, but that ALL VOTES WEIGHED THE SAME in terms of representation.

But my experience has been that most liberal Dems wear democracy on their sleeves... but never bother to define democratic principles.

In that way they can live with their cognitive dissonance that in reality they support an antidemocratic system.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

51. Your slip is showing by the second

Time to take the trash out. No minimum wage needed, I don't get paid by the hour.

[Loudestlib]

28. Don't blame the voters blame the candidate.

If you're running for office and you don't get enough votes, you did not run a good campaign or you're just not a good candidate.

[TM99]

30. Except the actual votes in Florida

went like this -

Bush got 200,000 registered Democratic voters. Nader got 89,000 voters total. Even if every last one of them voted for Gore, more Democrats still voted for GW over Gore.

That is the dirty truth that so much of the Nader bashing is about. When given a choice between a real Republican and a neoliberal Democratic pseudo Republican, I guess even Reagan Democrats chose the real one.

[VOX]

36. Screw Florida -- look at New Hampshire in 2000

Nader voters *did* give us Bush -- not via Florida, but via New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes (which, had Gore won, would have given him 270 ECVs, thereby rendering Florida moot):
Bush: 273,559
Gore: 266,348
Difference: 7,211
Nader votes: 22,198

If only a little over 1/3 of those New Hampshire Nader voters could have swallowed their pride, then...it'd be a different world altogether now, most likely a better one.

[TM99]

38. And the goalposts keep moving.

Post hoc ergo hoc fallacies galore.

It is through the voter fraud in Florida where a too close vote allowed for the Supreme Court to decide the election in favor of Bush.

Nader and all of us that voted for him had ZERO to do with that.

You want our votes? Then give us someone like Sanders who we can get behind. You want to castigate us for not voting for your candidate, well then fuck anyone who then tries to say we are to blame for that incompetence and willfully ignorance.

[VOX]

56. I AM behind Bernie!

I'm four-square behind him...but if somehow the actual nominee happens to be another person, my preference is to, yes, vote for the lesser of evils. Do I like that? Absolutely not, nor do I care for the rightward drift of everything on the American political spectrum. But a Republican executive branch will 100% guarantee years of severe hardships on women, minorities, education, voter's rights, health & environmental issues, etc., plus more supply-side crap and RW Supreme Court appointees.

I'd rather not risk that by opting out because my preferred candidate didn't make it to the finals, and whoever's left is just not "pure" enough to "waste" my vote on.

Just a matter of personal priorities, I guess.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

52. Yeaaaaa Al Gore bashing!

You must be proud.

[VOX]

57. Isn't it just so heartening?

What the hell happened to DEMOCRATIC Underground???

[TM99]

58. Woohoo!

Al Gore is a founding member of the DLC/New Dems.

I am a traditional progressive. Sorry that bothers you so much, not!

[mr_liberal]

35. Makes me wonder where Sanders donations are coming from.

How much of that money is coming from Republicans?

[whirlygigspin]

37. boy, Ralph still rankles them doesn't he? why is that?

[Maru Kitteh]

41. Mostly because he's the left's Trump. A selfish prick -

a grand master who manipulates the show carefully; but cares only that the brightest light is his. What's not to love?

[whirlygigspin]

47. Yup, but he's not stupid either

They 'all' crave the spotlight; I think that's why I like Bernie, he doesn't care, it's not about him
(I know, it sounds trite, but he says it himself (do what you want, vote for who you want but don't blame him for your choices)

It's also why I love the process; everyone has a chance to voice their opinions, (unless you are a felon, hello permanent underclass ) and conversely why I dislike all the system gaming, mud throwing and disenfranchisement that only serves private gain over public interest.

My kingdom for a reasoned argument

[Maru Kitteh]

50. Bernie is all about Bernie. He has said so himself. He has no party.

He doesn't care about the SCOTUS, the senate or the house and he has said so. There's things you need to work on to get things done. He doesn''t care about them. That's per his own words/admissions.

[whirlygigspin]

54. caring and a quarter will get you what in governance?

Being a disinterested party who has no vested interest in a particular area, it might be argued, is the nominal role of a President.

[Skittles]

45. because Dubya could not have been installed into the White House without the Nader factor

it will forever make me SICK

[eniwetok]

72. your choice of scapegoats says more about you than history

Gore lost for a multitude of reasons... any one of which could have changed the election. He could have let Clinton campaign for him. He could have not picked Lieberman. He could have challenged GOP voter suppression. He could have neutralize Nader by trying to co-opt him with a cabinet position... or offered those positions to someone like Robert Reich. Then there was Gore's choice for a recount in just some counties instead of statewide. Then there's SCOTUS which acted despicably... and that antidemocratic abomination called the EC which meant that the vote of anyone in Bush's FL lead weighed 1000x that of any voter in Gore's national lead. Where were the Dems... those alleged defenders of Democracy 50 years ago in working to abolish the EC or reform the absurd amendment process that allows states with a puny 4% of the US population, to block any amendment?

I could go on... but no rational argument is going to convince the Nader haters... because in the end all those other factors disappear when one dishonestly focuses just on FL.

[pressbox69]

42. Nader was a golden boy

for Bush and the republicans.

[whirlygigspin]

49. I think 180,000 Florida voters who were disenfranchised would disagree with you on that

but let's not let reality mar a good bubble

[whirlygigspin]

93. 180,000 Florida voters were disenfranchised, no one stood up for them

[eridani]

59. The problem was not Dems voting for Nader--it was Dems voting for Bush.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth

there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush.

[eniwetok]

63. Sorry... no facts allowed!!!

Those who have it in for Nader... don't care about facts. They will continue to forever blame Nader for DARING to exercise his right to run for president.... and those Nader voters who DARED to exercise their right in a "democracy" to vote their conscience.

So why didn't Gore find some way to neutralize Nader... say by promising him a position in the cabinet? No, Gore must be let off the hook for making bad choices in his campaign.

[eridani]

94. Gore was astonishingly good in "An Inconvenient Truth"

All I could think was "Where the hell was THAT Gore in 2000?"

[Hotler]

65. Hey everybody a Ralph Nader post....

Dog pile on Ralph.

[HughBeaumont]

67. I think I know someone even more indespensable . . . .

THIS fuckloser asshole.

[enid602]

86. bern

One might even consider a more recent example as well.

[enid602]

96. Rudy

Is that Rudy Giuliani to Liberman's right?

[Gothmog]

68. Sanders and Nader have a great deal in common-tweedle dee and tweedle dum

Sanders and the traitor Nader share a love of stating that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties and have even used the same sad terminology. Sanders first used the same terminology of stating that there are no differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican party when he ran as a spoiler for governor. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/04/when-bernie-sanders-ran-against-vermont/kNP6xUupbQ3Qbg9UUelvVM/story.html?p1=Article_Trending_Most_Viewed

Hillary Clinton is not the first progressive Democratic woman to be challenged by Bernie Sanders. He ran against me in 1986 when I was running for my second term as governor of Vermont. At that time he had little affinity for the Democratic Party. When advised that his third-party candidacy might result in a Republican victory, he saw no difference between Democrats and Republicans, saying: “It is absolutely fair to say you are dealing with Tweedledum and Tweedledee.”[/div
After Sanders used this termination, Nader joined in first http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/30/ralph-nader/nader-almost-said-gore-bush-but-not-quite/

Again and again throughout the campaign, Nader implied that he thought Bush and Gore equally objectionable. "It doesn't matter who is in the White House, Gore or Bush, for the vast majority of government departments and agencies," Nader said in a news conference in September 2000.

"The only difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door," he told supporters in California a month later.

"It's a Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum vote," Nader said in Philadelphia four days before the election, repeating a favorite refrain of his. "Both parties are selling our government to big business paymasters. ...That's a pretty serious similarity."

Nader also failed to challenge Sam Donaldson on ABC's This Week when Donaldson said, "You don't think it matters. You've said it doesn't matter to you who is the president of the United States, Bush or Gore."

Nader replied, "Because it's the permanent corporate government that's running the show here ... you can see they're morphing more and more on more and more issues into one corporate party."

Sanders needs to back down from this crap if he wants to speak at the national convention

[eniwetok]

69. No... it's EXACTLY What Dems And The Nation Need To Hear!

"Sanders needs to back down from this crap if he wants to speak at the national convention"

Dems already refuse to openly debate our antidemocratic electoral and political systems. But that's not enough? You want to further expand these ideological blindspots to so the Party doesn't even talk about growing corporate power: the biggest threat to what little we have of a democratic system?

[B Calm]

71. Hillary needs to drop out so the party can unite behind the liberal candidate Bernie!

[Gothmog]

77. Democrats would be insane to nominate Sanders

Sanders is not electable and would be a weak general election candidate who even Trump could beat https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.

The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”

Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .

Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.”

Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.

Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”

Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.

Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.

[eniwetok]

82. Sander's Big Mistake...

Gotta love Bernie... but he should known that label of "socialist" was going to be an obstacle... and should have said democratic socialism meant he was an old school FDR Democrat.

[Gothmog]

89. The attacks write themselves

The attack ads from this appearance on Meet the Press write themselves https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/12/why-bernie-sanders-isnt-going-to-be-president-in-5-words/

Meet the Press ✔ @meetthepress
CHUCK TODD: Are you a capitalist?@BernieSanders: No. I'm a Democratic Socialist.
8:33 AM - 11 Oct 2015

And, in those five words, Sanders showed why — no matter how much energy there is for him on the liberal left — he isn't getting elected president.

Why? Because Democrat or Republican (or independent), capitalism remains a pretty popular concept — especially when compared to socialism. A 2011 Pew Research Center survey showed that 50 percent of people had a favorable view of capitalism, while 40 percent had an unfavorable one. Of socialism, just three in 10 had a positive opinion, while 61 percent saw it in a negative light.

Wrote Pew in a memo analyzing the results:

Of these terms, socialism is the more politically polarizing — the reaction is almost universally negative among conservatives, while generally positive among liberals. While there are substantial differences in how liberals and conservatives think of capitalism, the gaps are far narrower.

...The simple political fact is that if Sanders did ever manage to win the Democratic presidential nomination — a long shot but far from a no shot at this point — Republicans would simply clip Sanders's answer to Todd above and put it in a 30-second TV ad. That would, almost certainly, be the end of Sanders's viability in a general election.

Americans might be increasingly aware of the economic inequality in the country and increasingly suspicious of so-called vulture capitalism — all of which has helped fuel Sanders's rise. But we are not electing someone who is an avowed socialist to the nation's top political job. Just ain't happening.

You can try to argue that the two terms are not the same but that will not stop the Kochs from running $200 milion to $300 million using that term in negative ads that would be very effective.

[The_Casual_Observer]

76. Nader wrongly claimed and reasoned that Gore and Bush were the same thing.

It was an all time giant blunder. Nader hasn't done anything since, except a radio show that nobody listens to.

[salinsky]

78. Wow ...

... who woulda guessed so many Nader voters would be Bernie or Busters this time around?

[HooptieWagon]

81. Nader forced 13% of Dems to vote for Bush?

[eniwetok]

83. Sorry... no facts allowed!

Last edited Thu Apr 7, 2016, 12:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Those who have it in for Nader... don't care about facts. They will continue to forever blame Nader for DARING to exercise his right to run for president.... and those Nader voters who DARED to exercise their right in a "democracy" to vote their conscience.

So why didn't Gore find some way to neutralize Nader... say by promising him a position in the cabinet? No, Gore must be let off the hook for making bad choices in his campaign... such as not challenging GOP voter suppression, not letting Clinton campaign for him etc.

Nader haters wear blinders when the focus on FL even though all those other factors are what made FL the final battleground. It's like focusing on the winning run in a baseball game without realizing all that happened before that led up to that last run was just as important in setting the stage.

[hobbit709]

84. Far more Democrats voted for Bush in Florida than voted for Nader.

[egduj]

95. Nader still pisses off the right people.