ralphdontrun.net

[Barad Simith]

http://www.ralphdontrun.net

Even though it won't stop him, this flash page explains, in clear graphics, the votes that would have gone to Gore in 2000, had Nader not run.

[mstrsplinter326]

1. did Nader steal florida?

or how about Tennessee?
Arkansas?
His votes were highest in the states that mattered the least - the Pacific Northwest (the Green Party homeland) and a few in east (all dem. anyway) so...
I guess the main points here would be
1) who lost the election for Gore? Bush/SC/Jeb/KH, Gore or Nader?
2) All the fact manipulating doesn't hide the truth of Bush's stealing and Gore's inability to fight for himself.
3) Nader supporters will not vote for Kerry in 2004 if Nader doesn't run. If you think so, you don't know enough Naderites. We don't believe that kerry is *not* liberal enough on many issues and would probably just end up writing his name in or maybe Dennis K., but not Kerry. Nader supporters don't vote based on what they think is better, they vote on what they think is right, wholly right.

[MurikanDemocrat]

4. Nader was only one of MANY factors involved in the 2000 loss

It can't all be blamed on Nader

Bush team stole it

Supreme Court stole it

illegal vote scrubbing in Florida and ... can't think of the other state right now (In Greg Palast Book: Best Democrasy Money Can Buy)

Gore made poor campaign decisions

Media crucified gore unfairly and propped up Bush to the point of nausea

Media declared Bush the winner giving the sense that Gore was a sore loser and trying to steal it

Cruella De Harris

Butterfly Ballots that recorded Gore votes for Buchanan

etc, etc, etc

[Colin Ex]

2. I suggest you read the first ten pages of

"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast.

-C

[WitchWay]

3. ...think about it

Alot of people keep saying that to win that the Dems should go for the middle, and so they are trying to find a "middle" candidate, believing this will beat bush (and its' all ABB, ABB, ABB)...yet while doing this, think of what is happening.

The more to the middle, the more there is alienation of the core constituency and a bunch of people are being marginalized. (remember just how many people pledged to vote for an anti war, anti IWR, anti patriot act candidate not that long ago)...the more to the middle, the more you lose your base.
Also, there are TONS of non voters, who would vote if they felt energized by the campaign.

But, no one is voting for their choice of Dem pres. candidate based on the core constituency, on marginalized voters, on potential or non-voters. The one thing, by choosing a principaled candidate, is that people can then be convinced of that candidates' convictions/principles/ideals, no matter the party-loyalty. If it is an unprincipaled candidate, this will be obvious, and then you really don't have a very electable candidate.

So, I think that I see many of the same mistakes of the Democrats being repeated. It's easy, and unproductive, to scapegoat Nader.