Nader to run again?

[mankie]

Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
  . The idiots who say Nader cost Gore the election are idiots.  

Actually, the Supreme Court lost the election for Gore.

[ratioci nation]

Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
     How are Gore supporters so sure that Nader voters would have voted for Gore. The point was, they were disaffected, and saw Nader as the only option. If he weren't an option, probably most of them wouldn't have voted at all.

there are exit polls that ask these sorts of questions, there are strong arguments on both sides of the issue (did he help Gore or Bush), I just wish people would stop considering the popular vote as proof of whether or not Nader helped or hurt Gore.
 
 I was a Nader voter in 2000, but in Virginia so it made no difference.  If I had thought Gore had a chance of beating Bush in Virginia I would have voted for Gore.  But I did not care for Gore much or Lieberman.

[Barcelona]

Originally posted by pollard:
   

Originally posted by Barcelona:
  to me, that would always be an intelligent move.

uhhhhh, no, not at all, there are some pretty bad southern democrats [/b]

I doubt any of these conservative democrats from the South would never get the national nomination to run for president. Also, I can't see any decent Republican running for president. However, I don't know too much about American politics and maybe there are decent republican moderates, I guess like the guy from Vermont who is now an independent, but again, I doubt a moderate republican like the guy from Vermont would ever get to run for president.
 
 Unfortunately (especially for the rest of the world), at this moment the Republican Party is way too fascist and arrogant, I don't see how a Democrat candidate could be any worse.

[mankie]

Originally posted by pollard:
 

Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
 [qb]    I was a Nader voter in 2000, but in Virginia so it made no difference.  If I had thought Gore had a chance of beating Bush in Virginia I would have voted for Gore.  But I did not care for Gore much or Lieberman. [/b]

Which is why your little electoral college nonesense is a load of bollocks, and a major part of the reason I don't bother to vote.
 
 If this country was a true democracy, which it's laughable calling yourselves "the greatest democracy in the world", when it's not even a democracy, the popular vote would be the only vote that counted.

[ratioci nation]

Originally posted by Barcelona:
  I doubt any of these conservative democrats from the South would never get the national nomination to run for president. Also, I can't see any decent Republican running for president. However, I don't know too much about American politics and maybe there are decent republican moderates, I guess like the guy from Vermont who is now an independent, but again, I doubt a moderate republican like the guy from Vermont would ever get to run for president.
 
 Unfortunately (especially for the rest of the world), at this moment the Republican Party is way too fascist and arrogant, I don't see how a Democrat candidate could be any worse.

you are probably right about presidential races, I was talknig about all candidates, not just presidential
 
 a moderate Republican would probably do pretty well in a run for president, the problem is, a moderate would never make it through the primaries, the power the right holds over the republican party, all the way down to the grassroots level, is astounding

[mankie]

On November 7, 2000, Americans held an election to determine who would be the next President of the United States. The four biggest vote getters were;
 
 Democratic candidate Al Gore with 50.16 million votes,
 
 Republican candidate George W. Bush  with 49.82 million votes,
 
 Green Party candidate Ralph Nader with 2.78 million votes,
 
 Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan with 0.45 million votes.
 
 If Americans had chosen their President based on who got the most votes nationwide, Al Gore would have been elected.
 
 Remind me again why Gore lost in a democracy???
 
 (Disclaimer.....I'm no Gore fan, just think the electoral college is a fucking joke)

[ratioci nation]

http://www.multied.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

[ggw]

Originally posted by pollard:
  http://www.multied.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

Here's a better article on the subject:
 
 http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

[ratioci nation]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  Here's a better article on the subject:
 
  http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

I think something might be wrong with google's search results

[donnasaur]

Nader should run for one of the Senate seats that will be vacated by Democrats in the next election, and mix it up there, but it's more about his ego than he and his (dwindling) fans will admit.  I challenge anyone who voted for him in 2000 to say now that there is no difference between Bush (the great uniter?) and Gore, Rep & Dem.  
 He's a frigging nightmare, and his supporters are either naive, stupid, or careless.

[Liberte]

Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
  Speaking as a Nader voter in 2000 and 1996, I can say the Dems would not have recieved my vote in either of those election. The idiots who say Nader cost Gore the election are idiots. Do they also claim that Perot running won the election for Clinton? They should.
 
    That said, Nader has made his point and shouldn't run again.

And the idiots who say intemperate and foolish things like, "The idiots who say that Nader cost Gore the election are idiots," now they would REALLY be idiots for not doing their homework before mouthing off.  From a 12/31/2000 AP article (link posted at the end for verification purposes):
 
 "Nationally, exit polls found that half of Nader voters would have supported Vice President Al Gore had Nader not been on the ticket. Thirty percent said they would not have voted and the rest would have gone for Bush.
 
 "In Florida, Nader got 2 percent of the vote. That's too small a group to analyze with exit polls, but if these voters were anything like Nader voters nationally, Gore easily would have won the state, its 25 electoral votes and the White House.
 
 "Bush won 2,912,790 votes in Florida and Gore won 2,912,253 â?? a difference of 537 votes. Nader got 97,488 votes."
 
 Or do the idiots in question think that the proportions of alternate choices among Florida Nader voters were so different from the national means that Gore wouldn't have scraped up a 538 vote advantage over Bush from among the 97,488?  If that is said idiots' grasp of probability, then they are cordially invited to a game of poker at my house.
  AP Postmortem on Nader Effect

[Dr. Anton Phibes]

Holy shit!! Does that mean I have to endure more Eddie Vedder benefit concerts for Nader??! That's worse than having to witness his pathetic attempt to get elected to public office....uugggghhhh!

[Herr Professor Doktor Doom]

There is simply no valid debate to the fact that Nader cost the Democrats the '00 election.  There is no other way to interpret the numbers.  It's like trying to claim that 2 plus 2 equals five.
 
 As for Perot, he was far more centrist than Nader is, and he drew support from the center-right and center-left.   Much of the weirdo-American community, which is well represented on both sides of the fence, voted for him.  As a result, the case that he cost Bush the '92 election is far less clear cut.  
 
 Even so, it's possible he did do so, and that possibility is one reason Republicans were such remarkably sore losers for the duration of the Clinton Administration.
 
 No amount of denial will change one basic fact:  The United States is a two-party system, and any third party candidate functions only as a spoiler.
 
 You want four more years of reckless lie-based wars (what's next, Syria?  Iran?  Korea?), unilateral foreign policy, ballooning deficits, insane religious ideologues in critical posts?  Go ahead and vote Nader in November.

[ratioci nation]

everybody listen to Doctor Doom, he knows how you should vote

The Nader of old will be trounced thoroughly, that's why I'm voting for the buff & beefy Schwarzenader.