Reply #21: Actually you're wrong on that count kaitykaity, [View All]

[MadHound]

Even Al From, DLC god admits that. From Blueprint magazine: "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race. "<http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919>

Then there are other factors, like the 380,000 registered Dems, and the 190,000 self described liberal who all voted for Bush in order to double screw Gore. Why? Because Gore decided to go with his corporate masters over at BP on the issue of offshore oil drilling in the Gulf waters off of Florida.

Or the matter of disenfranchised voters that Greg Palast handed over to Gore and his team on silver platter well before the selection. Gore had a chance to win the election, banish the Bushies to the political wilderness forever, and that minor little thing, uphold his oath of office. And yet he sat on this story. I still want to know the why on the story.

Or the fact that during the recount process, Gore and his team were doing the very thing that would guarantee a Bush victory, cherry picking which counties and precincts to recount. Rather advocatin for the best method, one that would insure his victory, ie a complete statewide recount, Gore elected to recount a county here, a precinct there. And thus loss the election. As it turned out later, a complete statewide recount would have gotten him the win.

There are many reasons why Gore lost in Florida. Nader isn't one of them, he is just a convienent scapegoat for to cover for the failings of the Democrats. In fact, if Nader wasn't in the race, Bush would have done even better.