If you voted for Nader in 2000, you have no say in Alito

[question everything]

confirmation or in overturning Roe v. Wade.

It is the same, every four years. The Republican nominee gets 80 or 90 percent of the Republican votes, while the Democratic nominee - close to 60%.

Going back to Humphrey in 1968 through Gore in 2000 - there are those who do not like the Democratic candidate and either stay home or vote for a third party candidate. We already hear about this here, of people staying home if Clinton will be the 2008 candidate.

It is not just the candidate! It is the Supreme Court that has been the item to consider since the Republican party was taken over by the religious wrong!

Alito will be confirmed. The Republicans have the votes for a direct vote and to kill a filibuster. The Democratic Senators are now playing to the home audience. Fine, this is what they should be doing.

But we'd better start working on taking back Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. We'd better have something to say besides bashing the Republicans. And we certainly are not going to win on LIHOP and MIHOP.

[pnorman]

1. I voted for Nader in 2000.

So what?

pnorman

[Faygo Kid]

2. You are not wrong, my friend. But remember, Gore was indeed elected.

It's a well written post, and correct, but we need to move on. I guess. Nader was wrong about Gore-Bush being mirror images. Desperately wrong. We need a powerful, honorable, take no GOP prisoners candidate. I can think of only one man.

[question everything]

25. Yes, we need to move on except... how many DUers will vote for Lieberman

or for Clinton if either become the nominees?

Yes, I doubt that Lieberman will but I will trust his supreme court nominees more than I would trust any nominated by a Republican president.

As for Clinton - I really will have to wait and see why she would like to be a president and what she would like to accomplish. Same for any other nominees.

Yet, we often see posts here claiming that if ..... (fill in the blank) is the nominee, that person will just stay home. Or vote for a third party candidate. And we simply cannot do it.

There are too many of our liberties at stake. Liberties that so many fought that we now take for granted.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. That's quite an extrapolation

Gets my OCD cooking. Like if I step on a crack my whole family will die. I take medication for that.

But I didn't vote for Nader. And I didn't step on any cracks today, either.

[WI_DEM]

4. I'm sorry but this arguement is getting stale

I voted and worked for Gore in '00 and I've reconciled the fact that it wasn't Nader who deprived the presidency to Gore but the Republicans working hand in hand with the judiciary in the form of the US Supreme Court. In this country we have the right to vote for whoever we want to--but we also have the right to see every single vote count. In 2000 that didn't happen, and that wasn't Nader's fault.

[leftstreet]

5. How arrogant Democrats can be.

Why should we assume that everyone who voted for Nader ONLY did so because they didn't like the Dem candidate.

pfft

[AntiCoup2K4]

6. Flamebait

"voted for Nader" has become a catch phrase for "Anyone who does not kiss the DLC's ass", regardless of whom they actually voted for in 2000.

[LittleClarkie]

20. Interesting non-sequitor

but I do agree. Flamebait.

Nevertheless, there is something between "voted for Nader" and "kisses DLC's ass".

[DemBones DemBones]

7. In a word: ridiculous.

And I voted for Gore.

[catmother]

8. i didn't vote for nader -- he's done some great things in his life

and will continue to do more but he is not qualified to be president. i'd like to see him in a cabinet position.

[firefox]

9. Boy that is some stupid shit there

If a person is not for changing to a direct vote for president with a majority required for victory, they can easily think goofy shit like that. And it all ignores the majority of Americans that do not even vote mostly out of a sense that whoever wins makes little difference.

BTW, you do not have a say or anyone else outside 100 Senators.

[AtomicKitten]

Let's move on folks.

We've got work to do.

If we can retake the House in 2006, those fuckers will be out on their keisters.

[jonnyblitz]

10. how about the 9 million FL DEMS who voted for Bush in 2000?

Does that bother you, too? THAT seems to be the elephant in the living room whenever the 2000 election is discussed and people whine about Nader. :shrug:

[rockymountaindem]

22. Nine million FL Dems voted for Bush? What?

Can you back that up with a link? I didn't think 9 million Floridians voted period!

[Mountainman]

11. The time will come when some people will cry in their beer for their

vote. Today is not that day. I feel that anyone who did not help the Dem win and is unhappy about the political fortunes to come should look in the mirror and ask that person what did he/she do to help or hurt this outcome.

All people who support choice had a chance to vote for the candidate that supports choice, the candidate that could do something about preserving the status quo. If you support choice and didn't vote for Gore look in the mirror.

[question everything]

26. Thank you. Well stated (nt)

[greendog]

12. Did Gore blame the Nader voters...

...for his loss?

No, he didn't.

Since 2000 Gore has conspicuously moved away from Clinton/DLC politics. He has opposed the war, supported single payer health care, endorsed Howard Dean's candidacy, worked to create alternative media, and has worked to make the American public aware of global warming.

I think he realized that his association with the DLC corporatists caused him a credibility problem with the left. The votes lost to Nader were a result of that problem.

Today, most of the Nader 2000 voters would be happy to support Al Gore. Not out of shame from the continual blame heaped upon them from corporatist democrats, but because Gore has genuinely reached out to them.

Al Gore has proved he has a lot of class.

Others could learn from him.

[AtomicKitten]

13. have I mentioned more than a brazilian times that I LUV Gore? nt

[Peace Patriot]

14. In 2004, the great majority of Nader voters voted for Kerry, as did the

great majority of independent voters, and the great majority of new voters (who were 60/40 Dem registrations).

What good did it do them?

2000 was then. This is now. And aside from your effort to deprive Nader 2000 voters of a right to an opinion and a right to action on a specific issue NOW, why are you seeking to divide us, after the unity we showed in 2004, in the effort to oust the Bush junta?

It seems gratuitous. Nader voters voted for Kerry. And, in any case, why should any voter be deprived of choices and opinions?

Also, someone upthread mentions all the voters who DIDN'T vote in '00, many of them Dems. Why harp on people who DID vote, and let the people who didn't completely off the hook? What kind of agenda does that speak of?

I think people who keep harping on Nader 2000 voters are possibly trying to avoid some unhappy truths about our Democratic Party leadership, for instance, its utter silence as Bushite corporations gained control of our election system, with "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code in their new election theft machines, and virtually no audit/recount controls. Not a peep out of our Dem leaders, about this non-transparent, fraudulent election system, as it was put into place, nor in the leadup to the election when voters and grass roots activists and election monitors should have been warned and alerted.

So, what Nader voters got for voting for the Dem candidate, and what independent voters got, and what new voters got, was a party leadership that didn't give a !@#$^ who was counting our votes, or how, and immediately bugged out of the fight.

You and me and all members of the Democratic Party need to face this. The Democratic Party has been corrupt, or complicit, or, at best, negligent, on the matter of Bushite corporations counting all our votes inside black boxes with secret formulae.

I am not in favor of abandoning the Democratic Party (forty-year member here), because I don't like the precedent of the center/left split in Germany in 1933 that gave rise to Hitler. I think this junta has gone way too far already, and that we are in very great danger, and MUST stick together. So I think we have to work with the Democrats, but not on a basis of untruth and illusory democracy. On the basis of hard facts and reality, and faith in the ordinary people in this country whom the Dem Party is supposed to represent. We. must. get. the. Democrats. to. reform. the. election. system.

However corrupt they are, however complicit they are--on the war, the election system and everything else--their action on election reform could bring about swifter change than the more slow moving grass roots movement that is gaining ground, and scoring victories, at the state/local level, but simply cannot act fast enough for '06. We are facing that election with a NON-TRANSPARENT, FRAUDULENT election SYSTEM, controlled by Bushites.

The Democrats need to

1. Immediately demand, and put major resources toward achieving, a transparent and verifiable election system in '06.

2. Announce that they are funding INDEPENDENT exit polls throughout the country, in '06, to put the election fraudsters on notice that we WILL catch them, prosecute and convict them this time. (--which will also send a message to the war profiteering corporate news monopolies about their doctoring of the exit polls in '04.)

IF the Democrats can be persuaded to do these two things, we will sweep Congress in '06.

[NoFederales]

17. Great plan. I wish some of our well known leaders would push it's merits.

There's no need to worry about fixing the Nation's problems if we cannot secure the validity of our voting choices.

NoFederales

[Aaaargh]

15. The Democratic Party leadership must REPRESENT the views of Democrats

"80 or 90 per cent"..."60"... When you quote numbers like this you really should SOURCE them -- unless, of course, you're just interested in starting yet another anti-left flamebait thread on this forum, and don't care about making a genuine case.

Furthermore, IF you wish to make an honest argument, you should differentiate in numbers between the Democrat 'stay at homes' and those who vote for a third party. Lumping them together is an exercise in deceit.

Let's discuss REALITY for a change. The Democratic Party has a large election-roll membership of lower-class and working-class people who are disaffected from the system overall and sometimes don't get out and vote. Indeed, in the last couple of election cycles, they're been pointedly discouraged from taking part, since many fall into categories of people who are discriminated against in polling places and sometimes even altogether prevented from casting a vote.

The other problem is that a large proportion of the Democratic electorate, including a good number of voters who always go out and vote, hold to views which are too-often NOT represented by Democratic candidates. Obviously, this is why there have been defections to the Nader camp and the Green Party in recent years.

I think that Democrats who vote for hopeless 'protest' candidates in general elections are making a foolish mistake. But they have the RIGHT to vote for whomever they wish, and the rhetoric that asserts that they have no business holding opinions about contemporary issues if they've made an alternative choice should be offensive to every American.

Beyond this, it simply isn't true that Nader voters were the only factor in Bush's 'victory' in 2000. To claim that is to take ONE item out of a complex situation, and to refuse to look at anything else, including factors that were far more important, such as the pronounced bias of the mainstream news media in favor of Bush, and the Supreme Court's intervention in FLA which ended the vote count. Even within that situation, who's to say that, if the Bush forces had needed to scuttle more votes to 'win,' that they wouldn't have done so?

When we talk about the people who make up the Democratic electorate, we need to identify that group of people as to their BELIEFS and expectations of political candidates who supposedly represent them -- not as members of a club sworn to loyalty, or branded critters in a herd. That means that the DEFINITION of a Democrat is as someone who holds to certain basic beliefs and principles, NOT just someone who put a 'D' next to their name at some point and thereby is 'owned' by the Democratic Party, no matter what the agenda of the candidates the party fields.

A major dilemma with the Democratic Party today is that, all too often, Democratic nominees do NOT represent a traditional Democratic agenda, even though a dominating proportion of Democrats must be defined as traditional Democrats. Limited choices, the media demonization of non-corporatist candidates, the prevalence of corporatist views amongs key party officials, and most of all, the factor of BIG MONEY in media-driven campaigns tend to prevent the traditional Democratic agenda from being represented in the general election -- while Democrats are told again and again that they MUST compromise to the point of accepting representatives whose positions are sometimes only slightly different from their Republican opponents on key issues.

So, rather than simply demand indignantly that registered or self-identified Democratic voters be loyal to Democratic nominees on election day, we need to get indignant about the fact that the party power structure keeps promoting candidates who don't represent a traditional Democrat agenda which would appeal to traditional Democrats.

As to "bashing the Republicans": We all know that this phrase is used by media pundits to suggest that Democrats are engaging in personal attacks and not talking about issues of substance. TELL ME, what's being said today about Alito by any Democratic official or representative which amounts to a personal attack and not a stated concern about the man's positions on issues -- which indeed DOES involve asserting support for contrary positions?

[purji]

16. Blah Blah Blah

I thought we did this in 2001.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Another one stuck on 2000. Try Vaseline buddy!

The lack of appreciation for the millions that went ABB in 2004 despited many misgivings and better judgment. Perhaps you would prefer that the '04 ABBers sit out the 2008 campaign, but then, only a Republican would be that divisive.

[welshTerrier2]

19. if you voted for Clinton, you have no say about WTO and NAFTA

if you voted for Kerry, you have no say about Iraq ...

if you voted for blah, blah, blah you have no say about blah, blah, blah ...

instead of whining about Nader voters, why not try to earn their support? gaining more support makes for better politics ... alienating potential supporters seems a little crazy ...

[Mountainman]

21. If the Dems don't put a far left candidate in 2008 what should we do?

Maybe we should not vote, maybe we should vote for someone that doesn't have a ice cube's chance in hell to win or vote for the repuke.

Any of the above that doesn't help elect the Dem hurts the Dem. You will not see a far left Dem in 2008. You can vote for far left candidates in local elections and hope we build a much more far left party, but it will not happen anytime soon. To expect that or to use that as the reason to not vote for the Dem is being elitist in my book and I just can't stand elitist Dems.

It's like the kid who doesn't get his way so he takes his ball and goes home.

[welshTerrier2]

23. far left?

what exactly does far left mean to you?

[Blue_In_AK]

24. I voted for Nader in 2000, too...

I knew Alaska would go for ** anyway, no matter how I voted, so I voted what I thought were my principles at the time. I did NOT vote for him in 2004, however.

[omega minimo]

27. Sez who?

It is hard to take the various Nader-voter-bashing threads on DU seriously, especially when they barely make sense and base arguments on flawed assumptions.

It seems there are more vital things to discuss today than playing the Blame Game.

:bounce: