Why competing for the "swing voter" will LOSE the election for the Dems. [View All]

[Devils Advocate NZ]

I have been browsing a few threads today and have seen that there is another "anti-Nader" campaign going on. Now this strikes me as hilarious because, once again Nader is being blamed for Gore "losing" the last Presidential election to Bush.

The logic behind this claim (that Nader "lost" the election for the Dems) is that he siphoned off votes from Gore. This is true, but WHY it is true is what these people REFUSE to even consider.

These SAME people are the people who believe that the Dems should move into the center (which in fact is to move to the right - the "center" in the US is in reality on the right end of the spectrum) as a way of picking up the "swing voters".

In fact this is what Gore (and Clinton before him) did. It worked - at first. But in 2000, reality came crashing down on the Dems. Prior to 2000 the many leftist Dems were giving them the benefit of the doubt. But by 2000 they had had enough, and voted for Nader out of protest at the rightward shift of the Dem party.

Guess what? The center DIDN'T win the election! That is the complete OPPOSITE of what these so-called "moderate Dems" claimed. They said that the center was how they would win. But the reality is that there are LESS VOTES in the center to be gained by a rightward shift, than there are VOTES LOST on the left.

Yet these same people are STILL demanding that the "fringe left" be ignored in favour of the "moderate center"! Worse still, they INSIST that THEY are the logical ones for wishing to alienate a significant proportion of their "natural supporters" in favour of a small minority that doesn't seem to care which party gets in.

So tell me "moderate Dems", if Nader lost the election for Gore DESPITE his shift into the "center", how will repeating the SAME tactic win the election this time?