Blame Nader First....or how the Democrats got a scapegoat.

[youngred]

First off, let me say before I get accused, tarred and feathered,I Abhorr Nader. I would NEVER vote for him. I think he's a vain egotist whose only concern is Ralph Nader.

However, I can certainly understand the appeal to some in the party. What I cannot stomach however is the jihad and hatred towards anything remotely resembling St. Ralph.

If Nader hadn't been involved in the 2000 Election the Al Gore would have won, that is probably true. But there are other things

If 10,000 Palm Beach Jews hadn't voted for Pat Buchanan Al Gore would have won.
If Al Gore hadn't run about the worst presidential campagin in history he would have won.
If the Media hadn't decided they wanted Bush and slammed Gore as a liar, shifty and a non-entity from the beginning he would have won.
If JEB Bush was not the Governor of Florida Al Gore would have won.
If Gore had spent a few more days and more money in Ohio he would have won.
If Gore had managed to carry his home state he would have won.
If The Supreme Court weren't Republican supportive Al Gore would have won.
If 10,000 DEMOCRATS hadn't voted BUSH in Florida Al Gore would have won.
If thousands of African Americans hadn't been illegally purged from the voter rolls Al Gore would have won.
If roadblocks in Democratic areas hadn't stopped people from getting to the polls Al Gore would have won.
If, as Florida law called for, all the ballots had been recounted Al Gore would have won.

Any ONE of those things had occurred AL GORE would have been the 43rd President of the United States of America. Sadly Gore's own problems and the immensely unfair scenario that played out cost him the election. So next time you want to purge any and all Naderites think, perhaps there are more important targets for your wrath than someone who is speaking to a group that the Democrats have forgotten. You want the greendog's support you have to earn it. You don't earn it by calling them out, attacking and marginalizing them. You work with them and give some concessions to them to build a coalition.

Stop the Blame Games and start building a positive coalition!

Beat Bush!





edit to add one more point

[WiseMen]

1. Nader took 70,000 Votes from Gore in FL. Gore need 500 to win. NH same.

This pretence is BS. The system is allways rigged against the left.
But Nader just added another hurdle. A hurdle which Gore couln't get over.

[youngred]

3. Way to completely miss the point

So what any of those other things happening like following the law, following the constitution, or a media even remotely neutral to Gore and we would have had him as the President

So, no, I'd say you "pretence(sic)" is bullshit

[dfong63]

16. baloney - those votes weren't Gore's to begin with

those votes didn't belong to Gore. he had to earn them - and he failed to do so. that's not Nader's fault. the American system is about choice. Nader gives people a choice. if you don't want them to have a choice, then shame on you. the repubs have had their own vote-splitting problems too. remember Ross Perot, Anderson, George Wallace? it cuts both ways.

[eyesroll]

2. The best analogy I've heard so far is Steve Bartman

(aka "The Fan," at the Cubs game, who caught the ball.)

If Bartman hadn't gone for the ball, might the Cubs have won? Maybe.
Were there 100 other opportunities for the Cubs to win, that they didn't take advantage of? Yep.

[Walt Starr]

8. Absolutely, but people made Bartman the scapegoat

Screaming about Nader will only drive some people who are already on the edge of a razor about voting for The Ham Sandwich (D) right over the edge!

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

4. great post, Zack

I too am not a Nader fan but I'd never try and discourage anybody from running. It is also unfair to condemn those who choose to vote for Nader because they feel he is the best choice. youngred is correct in saying that by attacking these groups, you will never have the support you want from the Greens or Dems who vote Green. We have to build our trust with these people again, because they have become ignored in our current party system. To blame Nader alone for the defeat of Al Gore in 2000 is slightly ridiculous. Just because those people who voted for him felt they did not have a suitable candidate in Gore doesn't mean Nader deserves all the shit he's been getting lately.

[Eloriel]

22. Hold ona minute there

That's just way too much sanity for a place like DU.

So stop it, 'kay?

:evilgrin:

[pscot]

5. Call the 2000 election

a demonstration of the law of unintended consequences. Give Nader the benefit of the doubt. He didn't realize he would end up costing Gore the election. Now he knows what the probable outcome of his candidacy will be. For him to run again is unforgivable. I believe he's nuts.

[GreenInNC]

6. 10 million Democrats

voted for Bush, 100,000 in Florida alone. If the Dems could get Dems to vote for Dems, Gore would be President.

[Cuban_Liberal]

7. THE FLOGGINGS WILL CONTINUE!!!

:P

[youngred]

10. until Morale improves!

:P

[Cuban_Liberal]

11. *grin*

:toast:

[Terry_M]

9. Let's not forget

That only about 50% of registered voters actually bothered to vote. If Gore convinced a small fraction of those who didn't bother to vote that he would do something for THEM, he would've won.

[youngred]

14. An excellent point

if just 500 florida voters could have been convinced that both Gore and Bush were not the same and that their vote might matter it would have been a completely different outcome.

There are so many ifs that blaming Nader is just pure scapegoatism and is EXTREMELY dangerous in that it alienates and attacks people who the party needs very much right now

[Walt Starr]

20. I guess 50 million non-voters had one helluva bigger effect

than those 70,000 Nader voters in florida, huh?

:evilgrin:

[rlev1223]

12. Nader

To "abhor" Nader for his vanity is pretty silly. He is certainly a stubborn obssessive who hasn't come close to moving the mountain as far as he wants, but don't forget that this is the man who essentially invented and organized the consumer and envronmental protection movements in this country.

In any event, he shouldn't run. This is the letter I wrote his website today. A bit fawning, but, as you say, he does have an ego.

Dear Mr. Nader,

To suggest that the parties are equally corrupt may have a rhetorical
attractiveness and even a legitimate basis...you certainly know far more about that than I do.

But it is disingenuous and simply wrong to suggest that another Bush term would not have the worst consequences for the most disenfranchised people and for the social psyche of the country as whole.

Moreover, the attraction that disaffected Democrats had for you in 2000 has been well noted....Dean became the titular head of the institutional-change wing and only when Kerry began to
echo the same message did he refloat his sinking candidacy. In short, you have done a fine job of shaming the Party. To aid in its actual destruction would be a shame in itself.

Finally, I don't think that a run for President can do anything but tarnish what is one of the most glowing reputations in the history of American politics and social service.

Your erudition and passion in smoking out the corruption and the structural evils in our "democracy" are unrivaled. This is not mere flattery...much of the progressive history of the last 40 years has come because of your efforts and in spite of your opponents. Your fight to dismantle the entrenched oligarchic nexus of money and power needs to continue and, American being a place that needs icons to personalize its politics, you need to remain free and able to continue.

Please do not run...whether you could actually deny a Democratic victory in the Presidential election may be an interesting academic parlor game for pundits. For the people, it would be a disaster.

[Raya]

13. I haven't seen positive coalition building. Just coalition destruction

Denying the obvious facts about American electoral politics
is not the way to build coalition. Nader and his supporters
have been in denial because they don't want to accept the
responsibility for Bush and his murderous wars. But the guilt
is on their heads as far as I am concerned. They put Bush in.

[youngred]

18. Did you even read what I wrote?

and no, Green supporters are NOT in denial, its the Nader detractors who are. The Green Party refuses to run a candidate this election because they see the danger. You're right there has been coalition destruction, it began when the Democrats abandoned their progressive roots to run to the centre. There are numerous ways that the Democrats could have won, even with Nader. Blaming him is ridiculous

[Cuban_Liberal]

19. They did NOT put Bush in.

Al Gore ran a TERRIBLE campaign, and if Democrats would have devoted 1/10th the energy into seeing that it was NOT incompetent BEFORE the election as they did in bashing Nader AFTERWARDS, Gore would have won.

[dfong63]

21. all this Nader-bashing misses the real point

which is that Gore actually did win. don't blame Nader for the fact that Bush and his friends stole the election. without Nader, they would have found another way to steal it. remember the FL legislature was/is dominated by repubs. remember the news stories at the time saying the lege was threatening pick Bush electors against the popular vote, if necessary.

[buddhamama]

23. here are some facts that i posted in another thread

i'll copy and paste here.
(i'm tired and lazy)

i would disagree/argue though, on whether or not we are a strict two-party system. our current system can support a third party.

electoral numbers/facts:
only 50% of the electorate voted in 2000.
think about that a minute. votes cast for either DEM, repub or third party during the last election only accounted for 50% of the electorate.
so it could be reasonably argued that, if a third party could attract the other 35-50% of the electorate, they'd win.


50% of the electorate was ripe for pickin'.
Gore has just much getting their vote as Nader did,as repubs did, as other third party candidates did.

[PVnRT]

25. You mean like you're doing now?

Christ, you can cut the hypocrisy with a knife around here.

Apparently, for people like you, a "coalition" is telling everyone to shut the hell up and vote for who you want them to vote for.

[Cuban_Liberal]

27. "I have in my hand a list of people who are not supporting Sen. Kerry"

Kinda like that, do you mean? :P

[tedoll78]

15. I think the lesson..

is to take no chances with the goon we're running against. Which includes not throwing-away one's vote to a certain non-winner.

[Monte Carlo]

17. Nader is a scapegoat, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't sap votes in Nov.

I voted for Nader in 2000, so I am in no position to preach about party unity at all costs. But I still believe that it would be a very good idea to mount as many effective votes against Bush in November as possible, and a good idea is a good idea.

I don't think anyone thought Bush's administration had such potential for damage and would take such a hard turn to the Right as it did. This time around, however, we have the luxury of hindsight to augment our foresight.

Nader's chances at winning the election are on the order of a monkey at a typerwriter banging out the complete works of Shakespeare. With extreme confidence, I can tell you one of Bush, Kerry, or Edwards will be in the Oval Office in January next year. A vote for Nader on principle is fine, but it is not going to be directed where the real fight is this year.

[union_maid]

24. Not a scapegoat

I don't know one Democrat who thinks Nader was the only reason we lost the White House. But everyone I know believes he was one factor among many. I have no more use for Ralph Nader than I do for Katherine Harris, or whoever decided to dress Al Gore up like Reagan in that embarassment that should have been a debate.

[youngred]

28. Don't think there are people like that?

Look around DU for 10 minutes from yesterday's headlines. Read the archives of the three year Green v. Dem Flamewars that went down here.

One would think that Nader and the Greens were Hitler, Satan, Bush's clone, the New Nazi party and Narcisus all rolled into one.

[PVnRT]

26. It was a nice try, youngred

Sadly, there are too many people in this forum who utterly convinced that anyone who refuses to put all the blame on Nader is a worthless piece of shit.

[jus_the_facts]

29. yeah well who's to blame for this...wonder what the Greens think.....

....about how their cause is being called :tinfoilhat:....and it was the SCOTUS who allowed * to be put into office...they had the final say and they sold us out...they allowed our democracy to be stolen.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1143818