The Green Party deserves every last bit of the "bashing" that they are getting here.

[DanTex]

I'm glad to see that so many progressives have learned the lesson of 2000. The Greens, whether it's Stein or Nader, are allies of the GOP. Period. Nader stated in no uncertain terms that he preferred Bush over Gore. And now Stein is running ads against Hillary in swing states (when she's not too busy attacking the US at events hosted by Putin).

And after 2000, nobody can argue that the Greens are irrelevant. It's not for nothing that the GOP helps them financially and runs ads on their behalf. No, they will never win any important election. Their platform is irrelevant, because they will never accomplish anything that it says. They aren't even trying to enact their platform. But in tight elections, they can give a decisive benefit to the GOP, as Nader did, and as Stein is trying to do now. As GOP allies, they are not irrelevant.

Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it, so goes the adage. And I'm proud that here on DU, and in the Democratic party, most of us are not ignorant of history. We haven't forgotten that Nader helped W get elected. And why should we? We also haven't forgotten Reaganomics and the whole supply-side garbage that led to so much economic injustice. And we haven't forgotten Jim Crow, we recognize that the latest push for voting restrictions is rooted in the same racism. We remember a lot of things.

It's too bad. Because the Greens could have been, in a parallel universe, a positive force in American politics. Support progressive candidates, raise important issues, pull the Dems to the left, but stick to safe states in presidential elections and don't deliberately try to help the GOP by trying to reduce Dem votes in swing states.

But that's not the way they went. They've gone full GOP. And it's doubly insulting that they are trying to co-opt the Bernie Sanders movement, a great resurgence of progressivism, and turn it into a political tool to help elect Donald Trump -- something which is diametrically opposed to Bernie's stated opinion and also his whole political history of being a pragmatic leftist.

I'm sure someone is going to chime in to complain about the "Green-bashing", but my opinion is: keep it coming. Whether it's Sarah Palin, or Rudy Giuliani, or Jill Stein, every Trump surrogate should get nothing but criticism on this progressive forum, or on any progressive forum.

[SCantiGOP]

1. No argument here

She is a lunatic. Had a guest editorial in the Columbia SC paper Sunday urging people to vote for her. Very convincing - if you didn't know what her positions were.

[bravenak]

2. Yep. They went full GOP

Jill attacks Hill while her running mate lobs strabge and baseless attacks on our ally Bernie Sanders, a man with more integrity in his pinky than They have between the two of them 'Greens' running this year. I will not stop criticizing her. She is playing anti Hillary lying ads all day in my state to try to fool folks into thinking she's real.
Now that I know she thinks wifi is cooking our kids brains I'm done playing pitty pat with her bullshit.

[tonedevil]

3. Who got more Democratic votes in Florida...

Nader or Bush? There I'm arguing that the Green Party is irrelevant. Why does it make sense to keep giving their brand validity by adding them to the conversation? If they get anymore than the one half of one percent of voters that they got last go round it will be because you can't shut up about them.

[DanTex]

7. The Swiftboat PAC in 2004 didn't get many votes either.

Are you going to defend them too? Should I shut up about the Koch Brothers? What other GOP allies should I not talk about?

[tonedevil]

8. Point out where I defended...

anyone. I'm saying you don't need to defend against a toddler calling you a doodyhead. As small a portion of the voters Nader got Jill Stein got significantly less when she ran last time. There is no reason to expect her to pull a lot more this time. She isn't going to be part of any Presidential debates and she isn't going to get them over the 5% mark so the Green Party could claim actual relevance. They are not relevant why do you want to make them so?

[DanTex]

10. You defended Nader, denying that he pushed W to the presidency. Why?

Nader was relevant. He cost this country and the whole world a whole lot. Stein is trying to be Nader II, except that this time instead of W, she wants to make Trump president, which would be even worse.

Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away. We need to make sure every would-be Green Voter understands that Jill Stein is a pro-Trump Putin sympathizer and an anti-vax ignoramus. Why do you have a problem with that?

[tonedevil]

12. If that is defending to you...

we don't even speak the same language. Of Democratic voters in Florida 1% went to Nader and 13% went to Bush. Nader may be part of what went wrong with the USA for 8 years, but he is far from the most important part. How do you not see the latger number of voters that went for Bush as a much more significant issue?
I don't like the Green Party I'm well aware at the least some of their chapters have straight up taken Republican money and they have been promoting false equivalence since at least 2000. They are dipshits, but they are not worth engaging. It's the old don't wrestle a pig in mud. You both wind up filthy and the pig enjoys it. Let the Green Party do their thing without your histrionics they will be even less relevant.

[DanTex]

13. Nader was a decisive factor. I have no love for Bush, of course, and I will criticize

him and Trump and the rest of the GOP all the time. But nobody takes me to task here on DU for criticizing people like Newt Gingrich. Why is it that when I criticize Stein I get this reaction?

[tonedevil]

14. The first 10,000

posts regarding the Green Party seemed a little overwrought, but still not a thing. The next 100,000 got kind of repetitive. It was when you got to 100,000,000 that I had to ask why are you doing this? It is making you seem like a nonstop promotion machine for the Green Party. I realize I am pretty deep into hyperbole, but the horse was dead when you started now it's hamburger.

[BzaDem]

57. The vast majority of posts here attack Trump/Republicans.

Considering that Jill Stein is also a candidate who wants to take down Clinton just as much as Trump, I don't really think the attacks on her are disproportionate.

[Exilednight]

63. Nader had nothing to do with Bush winning Florida. it baffles me that

my party still run with provenly glass narrative. Even Al Gore admits the loss is his own fault and that Nader played no roll in it.

If you want to bash Green policcies, then fine, have at it.. But please stop with "Nader cost us the election" meme - it's a patently and proven false.

Axelrod said it best: when a candidate loses it is on the candidate, at some point they have to close the deal.

Is it Nader's fault people liked his policies, or Gore's fault that he didn't appeal to those voters?

[DanTex]

78. Nader had everything to do with it. No Nader, and Gore wins. There's no denying that.

And there's also no denying that that was Nader's goal: to get Bush elected and "send a message" to the Democratic Party.

The Green Party's policies are totally irrelevant. The Green Party is never going to actually do anything with those policies, and everyone knows that. For Green Party to talk about the policies they want to enact is like me talking about my plan to play in the NBA. It's a joke.

The only purpose the Green Party platform serves is as a propaganda tool to try to peel away Democrats and help Republicans win elections, which results in the exact opposite of the policies that the Greens claim to support on paper.

[Exilednight]

87. If those people do not vote, how does it change Gore's vote count?

Unless you are working under the false assumption that those that votes Green would have voted for Gore, then nothing changes.

Polling at the time showed that only a very small fraction of Nader voters would have voted for Gore if Nader was not in the race.

[DanTex]

93. More to Gore than Bush, putting him over the top.

There's a reason that Republicans ran pro-Nader ads in 2000.

[Exilednight]

95. There's NO PROOF that the Green party people would have even voted.

I'm trying to figure out where people come up with this imaginary scenarios.

You're drawing off a false premise to fit your belief.

[DanTex]

97. Not all of them, but enough to comfortably make the election SCOTUS-proof.

Nader got 97K votes in Florida, and the margin was 500, about 0.5% of Nader's take. Even if 75% of them stayed home and the remaining 25% only broke 60-40 for Gore over Bush, it's still easily enough to make up the margin.

And the whole campaign Nader ran was designed to siphon off gullible lefties who could be convinced that Gore was no better than Bush. If he hadn't been out there campaigning against Gore and saying that it would be better if Bush won, then the Gore margin would have been even bigger.

[Maru Kitteh]

98. DanTex that is an excellent and precise summary. May I have your permission to use it when needed?

I will credit you of course.

[DanTex]

99. Thank you! Of course, yes, use it as you will, no credit necessary.

[Exilednight]

106. 8% of registered Democrats voted for Bush in 2000. Why blame Nader when

When our own candidate couldn't even solidify the party?

Third party voters vote for someone, not against.

It is total make believe to even think of this crap. Gore himself said he was a poor campaigner. He didn't even win his home state. 8% of registered Democrats voted for Bush.

[DanTex]

107. I blame them also. But Nader was a decisive factor, and had much more impact

than any individual voter.

What is total make-believe is trying to pretend that Nader did not pull enough votes from Gore to tip the presidency to Bush. It's obvious that he did. And he did it on purpose.

[Exilednight]

115. 1 out of every 13 registered Democrats voted for Bush, and yet the

But the blame gets put at the feet of the 1 out of every 65 voters who voted for a candidate in which they were never going to vote for Gore.

244,000 Florida Democrats vote for Bush, yet it is someone else's fault. And people wonder why we lose so many elections.

At least Gore is honest enough to admit the truth.

[DanTex]

116. The blame goes to the person, Nader, who campaigned against Gore and intentionally

pulled votes from Gore in order to help Bush become president. And he succeeded.

There is no doubt that Gore would have been president if Nader hadn't run. And there is no doubt that Nader thought it would be better to get Bush than Gore. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

[Exilednight]

119. My point is simple, Democrats don't scapegoat others for their failures.

[DanTex]

120. It's not scapegoating, it's recognizing enemies and treating them as such.

Which in this case means exposing Jill Stein for the Trump/Putin ally and anti-vaxxer and all-around ignoramus that she is.

[Exilednight]

121. I have no problem with going after Stein on those issues.

Those are issues that deserve critique and to be shown for the dangers that they are.

But the argument of Nader cost Gore the 2000 election is scapegoating. I love Gore, but he ran a lousy campaign. The same with Sanders. Gore lost because he lost Democratic voters to Bush. He lost because he took his home state for granted. He lost because he didn't want Bill to stump for him. He lost because he couldn't convince people to vote FOR him. He's the textbook example of why, "I'm not as bad as the other guy" doesn't win elections. The sooner we learn that lesson the sooner we will take back state governments and regain control of the House.

[DanTex]

122. It is a fact that Nader was a decisive factor in the 2000 campaign. He wasn't the only factor,

as with most events, there were many such factors. Yeah, Gore didn't run a good campaign. Lieberman was a bad choice. He didn't do well in the debates. The Clinton/Monica thing didn't help. Lots of things.

But Nader was definitely one of them. And one thing that makes Nader different is that he did it intentionally. It wasn't a mistake, or poor judgement with good intentions, or any of that. He knew that his actions were helping Bush win, and on occasion he even said that a Bush victory would be better than a Gore victory. He intentionally helped Bush win, and he did it under the banner of progressive causes.

We can learn more than one lesson.

[LisaM]

130. He also lied about Gore.

Saying that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Gore, what nonsense. Saying he wouldn't run in close states, another lie.

For one thing, Al Gore would have read and enacted the Gore Commission report on Aviation Security and 9/11 could have been prevented -

[Demsrule86]

65. The Green are running ads in swing states

and 2000 was not only about Florida...it was about claiming for over a year that Bush and Gore were the same...fuck the Greens.

[greatauntoftriplets]

82. I've even seen a Stein ad once in Illinois.

I don't think we're a swing state in this election.

[Demsrule86]

90. Who is paying for this? nt

[greatauntoftriplets]

92. Unfortunately, I missed that part as I was rolling my eyes.

I'll look more closely if I see it again.

[Maru Kitteh]

101. Well actually, we don't know yet who's paying for them. The ads are from her campaign, but

Open Secrets report dated July 21 states that she only had $235,000 cash on hand. So, who gave her the $$$ it takes for nationwide ads on CNN and MSNBC for days on end?

We don't know yet. But Putin's network RT sure is fond of her. Rove's and other republicans have funded greens in the past, and Rove's "American Crossroads" ran pro-Bernie ads in Nevada this year not because he likes Bernie Sanders of course, but to weaken Hillary Clinton.

So who knows? Stein is WAY cozy with Putin and RT though. I'm sure the money will be carefully laundered, but I also believe it will be scrutinized very carefully.

[Downtown Hound]

4. Ralph Nader on Trump and Hillary:

"Trump's done some good, Hillary winning by dictatorship."

That should tell anybody all they need to know about which side Nader is truly on. Unfortunately, I know there will still be some delusional cultists that will still defend him.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-13/ralph-nader-donald-trump-has-done-some-good-hillary-clintons-winning-by-dictatorship

[SusanCalvin]

26. He said that?

Mmmmmm, bye bye.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

[Maru Kitteh]

102. Especially when the "perfect" start praising Donald Freakin' Trump. n/t

[uponit7771]

66. ok...that does it... the greens are assholes

[bluedye33139]

5. For me the question is are they spoilers?

Is there a message of hate and destruction? Is there an arrogance and a sense of superiority, a belief that because they are not being obeyed, the entire nation should be destroyed?

[SusanCalvin]

28. Uh, that's not the definition of spoiler, to me.

Spoiler is siphoning votes away from Hillary.

[bluedye33139]

46. Uh, fair enough

Last edited Tue Aug 9, 2016, 01:07 AM - Edit history (1)

[Demsrule86]

67. Running ads in swing states where a couple of points could make the difference

makes you a spoiler. And by praising Trump and criticising Sec. Clinton you are also a spoiler.

[SusanCalvin]

79. Yep. nt

[rjsquirrel]

6. Agreed

They give the serious left a bad name. A cult of useful idiots.

[Democrats Ascendant]

15. ^this

[Johnny2X2X]

9. Why

Why do people get so worked up about the Green Party? They aren't a factor in this election.

[DanTex]

11. As the polls stand now, they aren't a factor.

If the polls tighten, then they could be a factor.

The Green Party has been a pro-GOP factor in previous election. It's foolish to write enemies off as "non-factors."

[SusanCalvin]

34. I'm terrified right now. nt

[VOX]

16. Greens weren't supposed to be a factor in 2000, either. Were you around then?

Nader's Green 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.

Greens peel away Democratic votes, period.

[SusanCalvin]

35. Yep.

Technically, Nader did not give us Bush. Stolen in Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004. But Nader was a plausible decoy/pawn.

[Wilms]

38. Yep. And that phoney war?

Over 80% of Americans were all in. So how many Dems does that include?

[SusanCalvin]

41. I'm not sure if you're with me or against me, from this one post.

I think I remember you from ER.

I didn't like Hillary, although I'm coming to, somewhat.

Right now, I think she's our only hope in the current system, Obi-Wan Kenobi.

[chwaliszewski]

40. Mere speculation.

I am not a Green Party supporter and do not like the Republicans. But, if Nader wasn't on the ballot, you have no idea where those 22,198 votes would have gone. Those people may have voted for Bush, Gore, none of the above, or just stayed home.

[StraightRazor]

52. Wrong...

http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/

[PatSeg]

19. Look at the threads on the first couple pages

of GD 2016. The most active threads are not about Trump or about our nominee Hillary. No, they are about Stein and/or the Green Party. Johnson who is polling at 10%, barely gets a mention and there is a slim chance he could end up in the debates (kind of doubt it, but it is possible).

To paraphrase Trump, I could stand in the middle of 5th Ave and shoot someone, and DU would be talking about Jill Stein and the Green Party.

Some of the irrational hatred of a rather inconsequential third party candidate just does not feel right. Of course, if you say that, you could get accused of saying things you didn't and of being a Green party apologist.

Maybe tomorrow we can talk Trump,

[SusanCalvin]

29. They could be. And that must not happen. nt

[EricMaundry]

17. Who does Putin love more?

Traitor Trump or Jill the Pill?

I'm surprised those two are not having a slap fight.

[fleabiscuit]

18. Kick...

[FairWinds]

20. So, let me get this straight . .

I can join in here on DU with the Green bashing . .

But if I defend them I'll get flicked.

Some discourse and discussion you have here . . !!!

[PatSeg]

21. I was here for primaries and

the presidential elections in 2004 and 2008, and I honestly can't remember anything quite like this. I haven't defended the Green Party or their nominee EVER, but if I talk about being civil or reasonable, I get accused of being a Green and saying things I've never said. Some of those who make the accusations, don't seem to talk about anything else in an election that is full of great topics.

Maybe I have to stay in regular old GD until things settle down here, if ever.

[FairWinds]

22. What is this mysterious "GD" of which you speak, Kemos Havee ?

I may well want to go there . .

[PatSeg]

44. Oh, it is just the regular

"General Discussion" and it isn't about just politics. After the election is over General Discussion: 2016 will go away. You don't get so much left-over primary residue there!

[SusanCalvin]

25. I'll tell you why I'm even paying attention to third parties.

Because I am terrified.

[PatSeg]

45. That part I understand Susan

and honestly you have expressed yourself in a civil, sane manner. I haven't seen you attack people or accuse them of being Green party supporters. I had a couple of people jump all over me and accuse me of saying things I never said. It sounded like they were angry and screaming in every single comment.

Also, I've noticed that a small handful of people comment or post primarily about Jill Stein and the Green Party. That in an election that has so many interesting and challenging things to talk about every day.

[Maru Kitteh]

105. Beware too of men who flatter with insincere praise, it's a bulling tactic to "keep little ladies

in their place." A method of manipulation and control. Praise falsely the behavior they want you to have, while instructing you about "bad" things you shouldn't do.

It's just another form of mansplaining.

[SusanCalvin]

23. Totally agree.

And thanks for the hattip to Bernie - if not to (some of) his supporters.

[Ford_Prefect]

24. The continuing out of context and overwrought bashing of the Greens is effectively click bait.

If it serves your ego to attack a position that if defended proportionally would have the defenders banned have at it Dan. I'm personally tired of the abuse expended over the fear that an extremely marginal party representing people who think the planet needs help are somehow going to throw the deal to the dark party.

To put this in a bit of context I note that No One seems much to care about all the other documented likely causes which could and this year have actually generated real problems in getting enough voters to show up and their votes counted correctly and completely.

The numbers of denied votes this year alone far outweigh those few the Greens are likely to get, not to mention that it is in the US Constitution that they have a right to run candidates for office.

I don't approve of their funding nor some of what they have said. I don't see why you and others here are so vehemently opposed to them that you begin to sound like our more formal opposition when speaking off hand regarding certain recent immigrants.

If you really want something to worry about that you can do something constructive to address please consider just how many yet unregistered voters it may take to overcome the widespread manipulation and discrimination of voting access embodied in so many Republican controlled states. That number is easily far more than the Greens will take home in November. GOTV dude.

[SusanCalvin]

30. Totally agree with GOTV.

But I pay attention to third parties also. They can be a useful decoy.

[Ford_Prefect]

37. The point is not to waste energy on them, or turn us into one more hateful blog.

If they really can divert enough votes then maybe, just maybe, that might mean there are a few more people out there who don't want either conventional Party candidate under any circumstances. I don't think that's the case.

The whole point of the GOTV process was proven in 2008.

My impression for what little it may be worth is that marginal parties have far more effect in local and state level situations than elsewhere. In any case you cannot shut them up just because you see them as a nuisance large or small.

The virtue of being a front runner is that you can energize people to vote for you by outflanking the opposition. If the Greens threaten you then the best way to counter is to motivate more voters on your side of the equation and make sure they're registered and get them to the polls. Its basic electoral math, just ask any labor organizer.

[SusanCalvin]

39. I'm not willing to take the chance.

Anyone who does not recognize reality is the opponent.

Will I try to butter up/sweet talk if I think it will help? Yes.

Do I still regard them as the opponent? Yes.

[Demsrule86]

71. I gues then maybe the political whore Stein

who is bought and paid for by the GOP and possibly Russia should quit running anti-Hillary ads in swing states...and those voters who support the Greens really support Trump. All the efforts by Greens in this election have but one purpose: to elect Trump...so screw them.

[tonedevil]

113. I thought...

we didn't approve of calling women whores. As I remember it there is no modifier that makes it acceptable.

[Demsrule86]

123. She is a political whore in that she sells

out the Greens to the highest bidder...she takes money from the GOP and possibly Russia.

[tonedevil]

124. I thought...

a modifier made a difference, but apparently corporate did not.

[Demsrule86]

125. I will not argue with you about this...she is green and a opponent and I can say what I want

She has said awful things about Hillary. I dislike the Greens and disapprove of those who are trying to campaign for her here. It won't work. By the way as for the modifier...thing...the primary is over. Yes I rememmber...let it go.

[tonedevil]

127. As to the primary...

I let it go long ago. I'm just amused by double standards and those who feel comfortable applying them.

[Demsrule86]

132. Right...

I have seen the residual primary bitterness on this site. ...not hard to spot. I will not contradict you about letting it go, but only say this...You say you have 'let it go' but still talk about a double standard;that is kind of harsh. It still matters to you I think. I do understand. I was a Howard Dean supporter:a Deniac.

[tonedevil]

133. I don't think I said...

I wasn't bitter. It is hard to have disingenuous vitriol cast at you and not have some residual bitterness. When I say I have let it go I mean I have been a Democrat since 1974 and even though the primary did not result in the candidate I wanted my vote and support are firmly with the Democratic party.That said, there are things that really stuck in my craw during the primary and I will call people out on them.
In April when Dr. Song said "Medicare-for-all will never happen if we continue to elect corporate Democratic whores who are beholden to big pharma and the private insurance industry instead of us," his statement was characterized as him calling Secretary Clinton a prostitute and demeaning women everywhere. It is obvious that he didn't mean that just as it is obvious you aren't saying that Dr. Stein engages in sexual prostitution. Further it is not changed by the fact that the subject is a woman in either case. If referring to corporate Democratic whores, without even explicitly naming Secretary Clinton, is insulting to her in specific and demeaning to women in general then calling Dr. Stein a political whore seems like it would be doing the same thing. That is where my accusation of double standard comes in.

[SunSeeker]

27. They deserve it and then some.

[sweetloukillbot]

31. They were actual GOP ratfuckers in Arizona in 2008

Several tight state house races featured mysterious Green party candidates who registered to run on the last possible day and who were Republican party staffers up until they filed to run as Greens. They cost several good Democrats their seats.

[SusanCalvin]

33. That is disgusting.

And finding out things like this is why I read DU. Thank you.

Might you have links?

[sweetloukillbot]

42. Here

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2008/10/11/20081011greenparty1011.html
And apparently it got even worse in 2010 - recruiting the homeless to run as Greens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07candidates.html

[SusanCalvin]

48. Thanks. Might you make this an OP? nt

[SusanCalvin]

32. Anything that has even the possibility of taking votes away from Hillary

(short of discovering something truly heinous, which I don't think is likely) is inexcusable.

[redstatebluegirl]

36. We need to keep them out of our convention next time too!

[uponit7771]

70. +1

[betsuni]

43. When there's a post pointing out how well Clinton is doing, we're warned not to be complacent.

When there's worry that Green votes might put Trump in the White House, we're told it's just a little bitty Party, don't be silly, what are we afraid of.

[SusanCalvin]

49. Yep. That worries me. nt

[randome]

84. And we hear how compromising with Republicans is evil.

But compromising with the Greens is simply splendid!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Gothmog]

47. K&R

[SwankyXomb]

50. A Green post is a Libertarian post is a Republican post

Unless they're going to capitulate and endorse the Democrats, posts for them, and by their supporters, should not be welcome here.

[StraightRazor]

51. Nader didn't cost Gore the election in 2000...

People should vote their conscience and not be bullied into doing otherwise.

http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/

[pnwmom]

58. Yes, he did. In his 95K Florida votes he took far more votes from progressives in Florida

than from conservatives.

And the state count was decided by less than 600 voters.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called “Florida and New Hampshire” simply “the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket,” when Cook was writing about “The Next Nader Effect,” in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, “Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes [nearly 200 times the size of Bush’s Florida ‘win’]. In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 [three times the size of Bush’s ‘win’ in that state].” If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States — even more indispensable, and more important to Bush’s “electoral success,” than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation’s chief Ken Lay.

All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn’t even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn’t count in these calculations at all.) Nader’s 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida “victory” for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, “Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?” (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, “We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore.” David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, “Nader to Crash Dems Party?” and he wrote: “In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader’s Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore’s loss.” Nationwide, Harvard’s Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, “Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?” (also on the internet) presented “Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates,” showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader’s voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn’t have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn’t been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida’s Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn’t included Nader. Clearly, 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.

[Ford_Prefect]

60. So what you are saying is that progressives do not deserve to vote despite the Constitution?

Has it occurred to you or anyone else that we still live in a Democracy which generally supports freedom of speech and assembly?

Minor parties don't represent their voters' interests?

Political voice in America is only allowed for those selected by the 2 major parties?

The Candidate can only win if no-one else votes against them? What kind of logic is that? How does that work exactly?

GOTV disproved much of this in 2008. Get the G*d D***ed VOTE out and you will win as long as your Candidate has a good positive message.

Go negative and the game is deny the other party voters who didn't really want them in the first place.

More votes are to be found in GOTV strategy, unless the process is flipped as in Florida and Ohio (but that's only CT anyway, right?).

[uponit7771]

68. Overt strawman, no one is talking about right to vote its best choice for the country

[Demsrule86]

72. Yes he did...and the Greens bashed Gore for a year

and they are repeating the same thing this year...well no more. The Greens are paid for political whores; they are for sale to the highest bidder and take money to spoil the elections of Democrats and help elect Republicans even on the state level...They are an arm of the RNC.

[bluedye33139]

77. Nader did not even support the Green platform when he ran

They ran him purely on star power, without even caring about his policy ideas
The word that comes to mind for me is "Craven" when I think of the greens

[Demsrule86]

91. I agree. nt

[athena]

88. If you think this is bullying, then you've never been bullied.

Consider yourself lucky. Bullying is a serious form of psychological abuse that destroys careers and lives. An internet post that points out the consequences of voting third-party is not bullying in any shape or form. Your post is an insult to everyone who has actually been bullied.

[Maru Kitteh]

111. You mistake concience for spoiled, prideful ego. Voting for 3rd party when you know vulnerable

people may suffer the consequences of your action is amoral.

[Gore1FL]

53. "We can disagree without being disagreeable" -- Barack Obama nt

[Demsrule86]

73. I dont' want to.

I don't want any Green traitors posting their poison on this website which is dedicated to electing our nominee and supporting Democrats.

[Gore1FL]

75. That doesn't mean calling them names and otherwise disparaging them is a good idea.

If they are not voting for Clinton, I'd rather they vote for the wrong top candidate but the right down-ballot candidates than not vote at all.

There is no reason for hostility towards them as voters.

[Maru Kitteh]

104. A Green voter is a Trump voter, both deserving of the same.

Those down-ballots gain us little with Trump in the White House and a Supreme Court stacked with Scalias and Borks.

[Gore1FL]

109. If they were a Trump voter they would be voting for Trump.

A Green voter is voting for Jill Stein. I looked in Article 2 of the Constitution and nowhere does it say third party votes are added to the Republican total.

Down ballot contest are important too.

[That Guy 888]

54. 537 votes separated Gore and * as per the certified vote count for FL.

You might as well scream about the Socialist Workers Party, they received 562 votes.

[scheming daemons]

55. Nader received 95K votes in Florida. If only 1 out of every 190 votes he got switched to Gore....

...then Gore would've been President.

Nader was a close second to the SCOTUS as to the reasons why Bush became President.

[That Guy 888]

56. Gore certified the election results for FLORIDA

Despite the caging.

Every Democratic Senator (as well as VP Gore who presided over the Senate that day) certified that the vote count for Florida was legitimate. They also refused to allow the Congressional Black Congress to testify about the election fraud committed in Florida. The Chair of the DNC Ed Rendell and other Democratic Party Leaders had decided: "...we shouldn't try to delegitimize Governor Bush."

http://articles.philly.com/2000-12-13/news/25580237_1_rendell-equal-protection-problem-federal-court

That was the Democratic Party Leadership, not Nadar. To put it another way if the situation were reversed do you think darth cheney, would have rolled over like that? The party with the worst ideas fights like hell to make them the law of the land, and our Democratic Leaders are too spineless to fight for basic rights like fair elections.

And what are people doing here? Fighting against a party that would be lucky to get 3% of the vote when we all know that republicans will do anything for power.

Nader received 95K votes in Florida. If only 1 out of every 190 votes he got switched to Gore...then Gore would've been President.

If the Democratic Party member hadn't created the confusing butterfly ballot thousands of Jewish Democratic voters would not have voted for the anti-semitic pat buchanan. There are so many reasons Gore wasn't VP; only Democratic Party members looking for external scapegoats that aren't as "scary" as the republicans would blame Nadar.

[BzaDem]

59. That is irrelevant to who was inaugurated.

If Gore, plus the entire Senate Democratic caucus, voted to challenge the Florida slate of electors, the House still would not have agreed, and the electors would have been counted for Bush.

The Supreme Court handed the election to Bush, and they couldn't have done it without Nader.

[That Guy 888]

117. They couldn't have done it without republican election fraud.

which cost gore Florida.

The butterfly ballot hurt even more than Nader. A hell of a lot more than 537 votes absolutely intended for Gore went to pat buchanan.

More than 537 votes were lost to purges by katherine harris, where was the DNC? Why didn't they make sure those voters received provisional ballots? They were news stories about this before the election. Where was the Democratic Party Leadership?

The Democratic Party Leadership has been to cowardly to fight the republicans when they should must, hopefully Hillary Clinton will change that.

Gore played his part too.

How Florida Democrats torpedoed Gore
If the vice president had locked up his party's traditional base in the Sunshine State, the election wouldn't be tied up in the courts.

...In the aftermath of this election, the media and political pros have zeroed in on one set of election figures, while totally ignoring another set that may be even more revealing about the presidential race. The national focus, of course, has been on the few-hundred-vote difference between Gore and Bush — a thin divide that was breathlessly termed a “crisis” for our democracy by assorted pipe-smoking pundits. Yet these same pundits didn’t give a puff about a far wider electoral divide that I think poses an actual crisis for our democracy: the more than 100 million votes that went astray on Election Day.

These votes weren’t “lost” to misaligned butterfly ballots, pregnant chads or some conniving election official who deposited them in a closet. Rather, these were the uncast ballots of almost half of the American electorate, who chose not to vote this year largely because they feel they’ve been cast out of the process by a vacuous, cynical and elitist political system that no longer addresses their needs and aspirations.

These mostly are middle- and low-income folks, people making less than $50,000 a year. While they make up some 80 percent of the U.S. population, exit polls on Nov. 7 found that for the first time they’ve fallen to less than half of the voting population. As the Clinton-Gore-Lieberman Democrats have jerked the party out from under this core populist constituency, pursuing the money and adopting the policies of the corporate and investor elite, the core constituency of the party has — big surprise — steadily dropped away. In 1992, the under-$50,000 crowd made up 63 percent of voters. In 1996, after Clinton and Gore had relentlessly and very publicly pushed NAFTA, the WTO and other Wall Street policies for four years, the under-$50,000 crowd dropped to 52 percent of voters. After four more years of income stagnation and decline for these families under the regime of the Clinton-Gore “New Democrats,” the under-$50,000 crowd dropped this year to only 47 percent of voters.

At the same time, those who are prospering under the Wall Street boom, cheered on by the policies of both the Republican and Democratic leadership, have become ever more enthusiastic voters. In 1996, voters with incomes above $100,000 (about 3 percent of the population), made up 9 percent of the turnout; this year, they were 15 percent of the turnout.

The article critiques the campaign that Gore ran, and how he and other Democratic Leaders just assumed they didn't need to campaign for low and middle income voters. Weirdly the article mentions "living wage". Just goes to show how long the Democratic Party has ignored income inequality.

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

[BzaDem]

118. So what? Nader could have single-handed prevented Bush. He chose not to. n/t

[That Guy 888]

131. Try reading the post instead of going for the easy DNC approved answer. n/t

[pnwmom]

62. He wouldn't have been put in that position except that Nader drew 95K votes after purposely

deciding to hurt Gore and help Bush in Florida. And he crowed about it afterwards.

[uponit7771]

69. Is there any source of Nader crowing about this? I didn't come to a decision on Greens until

... seeing Steins Russia video and this would put the nail in the coffin for me.

Crowing about taking votes for Gore in FL is 100% asshole

[pnwmom]

103. I remember this press conference and how sickening it was to watch him.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/ralph-nader-suicide-bomber-6407516

Hand it to Nader—he ran a brilliant campaign, approaching the loony task of punishing the Democrats by defeating Al Gore with typical hyper-rationality. A mad scientist in both senses of "mad," he devoted his enormous skills, knowledge, and reputation to a bizarre personal agenda. Nothing he has said since indicates he thinks he made a mistake.

The day after the election, I saw a Nader press conference on TV. I'd been watching TV news reporters, various Gore and Bush representatives, Republicans and Democrats, almost nonstop. Everyone was grim. Nobody thought this was a good outcome.

And then up stepped Nader. He had not smiled at his adoring fans and supporters at his New York party. But now, after a few comments, he was beaming. With this deadlocked election, where his efforts in Florida made all the difference, Nader looked happy, very happy. On the first strange day after the election, Ralph Nader may have been the happiest man in America.

[uponit7771]

108. Wow... this line says it all

"Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them."

[Gore1FL]

76. If they all stayed at home and didn't vote for down-ballot Democrats what would have happened? nt

[pnwmom]

61. But Nader got 95,000 in Florida. Even with the hanging chads and other issues,

Nader's votes, since they were heavily progressive, changed the outcome of the election.

[progressoid]

110. And Bush got nearly 350,000 Democratic votes.

12 percent of good old Democrats voted for Bush in Florida.

[Demsrule86]

74. How about beating Gore up everyday for a year? Yeah that was the Greens and Nader.

While they undoubtedly lost Florida and I don't care by how many votes...they did damage in other ways...and explain to me how it is harmless for that witch Stein to run ads in swing states?

[Demsrule86]

64. That is exactly right

While the Greens could be a force for good they have gone to the dark side and now help elect Republicans. They have meddled in local races too..taking money from the GOP to act as spoilers. Honestly, the Greens are political whores...for sale to the highest bidder...Russia or the GOP? We don't know. And for those who view this as a continuation of the primary. It is not. It is a complete insult to Bernie to compare him to Jill Stein who is completely useless to the progressive movement. Bernie is an accomplished Senator who cares enough about this country to endorse the one person who can stop Trump. Bernie Sanders became ran as an independent for the Senate and won...what Green can make such a claim? The answer is none. Jill Stein will never accomplish anything. In the primary, Sen. Sanders raised important issues and undoubtedly pulled the party left. But what has Stein done other than support Trump? As far as I am concerned, anyone on Trump's side is a selfish narcissist who cares only for themselves and not the Amerian people or even the progressive movement. Yes, Stein and any supporter of that Green wing-bat, I am taking about you. Trump is a monster and must be stopped cold. And based on their words, many will vote for Trump or Stein (which is a vote for Trump). A fair number of Green voters have publicly stated on various websites that they want Trump to win and will vote for him if their state is close. Sorry, those folks can call themselves Greens or Martians for all I care, but they can not be called progressive and are a danger to our nominee-Sec. Clinton...one or two points in a swing state where that troll Stein is running ads could make the difference between winning and losing. We can't afford to lose this election. The Greens and Stein...apparently are fine with losing Roe V Wade, civil rights, gay marriage (and the possibility of criminalizing gay people again), more tax cuts for the wealthy, no healthcare for the poor and middle class, no college tuition help, starving babies, ending public education and possibly a nuclear holocaust as Trump thinks if we have nukes we should use them. No Green traitors to the progressive movement, Clinton and Trump are not the same. But you are...the same selfish narcissistic traitors you have always been...really an arm of the RNC.

[Gothmog]

80. The Greenies are defending Nader and the 2000 election

That is so very very sad

[rjsquirrel]

85. Bravo

At least it's clear which side they're really on, as if Jill Stein didn't make that clear.

Greens are tea partiers in Volvos.

[greatauntoftriplets]

81. Amen.

[joshcryer]

83. I have zero respect for those grifters.

But I pity the poor people they fleece of their money and vote.

[Maru Kitteh]

114. I pity the young ones, the naive and the simple who are fleeced of their money. I have

I have nothing but contempt for those who vote green knowing that the vulnerable of society may suffer the consequences of their insufferable sanctimony.

[stonecutter357]

86. K&R!

[Orsino]

89. Some of them , I assume, are good people. n/t

[Capt. Obvious]

94. tl;dr

[Maru Kitteh]

96. I see the usual suspects showed up to tell us to "leave Jill alooooooooooneeeeee"

[DemonGoddess]

100. K&R!

I've said this before and I'll say it again. All of the people I know who profess to be Greens are inflexible. No one is "pure enough" unless they're Green.

[Rex]

112. More fight club?

[uppityperson]

129. Hi, how's your summer been?

[TonyPDX]

128. They're just a pack of Joe Lieberman's*, if you ask me.

*I know that's harsh, but it's the truth.