Reply #95: So he wasn't allowed to run in 2000? [View All]

[Deja Q]

:eyes:

No revisionist history, here's a refresher of some of the key elements:

Nader ran. Like how he's legally allowed to.

Got like 2~6% of the vote depending on the state one was in. It was something like 5% in Florida. Wow. 5%. He's so big and powerful and tender and juicy too. :eyes:

Gore's job during the campaign was to convince people he was the better candidate. Gore essentially ran a lackluster campaign. Go watch some youtube clips, particularly of the debates. Gore was FEEBLE in the debates. Very odd given the Lewinski affair was still fresh in peoples' dirty minds; Gore should have seen the obvious and figure it out he, by association, had more work to do. Like it or not, Gore didn't. Indeed, only when there's no sign of consequence does Gore actually say anything with meaning. Even then, that's constrained to only political issues. Remember, lots of people (and on DU so go search) were saying (paraphrased) "Where was this attitude during election 2000?"

The US Supreme Court made the decision.

The 'Popular vote' was ignored. Must've been a good legal reason; isn't the 'popular vote' tallied by legal officials as well? Or has the 'popular vote' no legal bearing at all?

Florida ran by the corrupt and/or inept.



There were MANY factors afoot. The least of which was some guy choosing to run, even if he was a big evil republican plant. Why don't you find a democratic plant for election 2012 then. :eyes:

In short, don't get pissed off because somebody from a third party came in and won 5% of the vote. Nader's involvement was tangential at best.