Nader, 2000's Scapegoat

[Boris]

lol. I can't wait for BRTD's response.

[Boris]

Since all of Nader's supporters were young hippies, I doubt most of them would've bothered to vote had he not been on the ballot.  But I'd bet a million bucks that at least 538 of them in Florida would've shown up for Gore.

The same can be said of supporters for the other parties. Gore is mostly reponsible for these left voters voting Nader. Had his party actually listened or addressed the leftwing before the last minute, he wouldn't have lost those votes.

Yes, but Nader clearly was the most guilty culprit. Nader received 97,488 votes in Florida, whereas the other leftist candidates received less than 2000 votes. Had Nader not been on the ballot, I'm 99.9% confident that Al Gore would have received a net gain of 538 votes in Florida. And the rest, as they say, is history.

And Alcon is correct; people that voted third party socialist probably a) wouldn't have voted or b) voted for another third party candidate. Enough Nader voters would have voted for Gore, as indicated by their large swing towards Kerry in 2004.

And in what respects do you say that the left-wing was ignored in 2000? Can you give any specific issues?

[Boris]

Let's start with his cozy relationship with corporations.

Of course he had a cozy relationship with corporations (as if Ralph Nader hasn't)! He was Vice President of the United States! The manner in which our political system works ensures that politicians on both sides of the political spectrum get cozy with corporations. Otherwise, they lose their financial support and don't get elected. And from a candidate's perspective, losing that money would mean a higher net loss of votes than losing a fraction of a liberal voters.

Honestly, the real reason why 6% of self-identified liberals voted for Nader was because they thought there was no difference between the two candidates (80% voted for Gore and 13% voted for Bush according to CNN exit polls). The last six years have proven them wrong. I guess they didn't make the same mistake in 2004 (even though Kerry's views were pretty much the same as Gore's), but alas, by then, the damage to this country had already been done.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's irrelevant what you think Gore was entitled to (cue Jmfcst with a movie reference). Had Ralph Nader not been on the Florida Ballot, Al Gore would have won the 2000 Presidential Election. Therefore, Ralph Nader is responsible for George W. Bush's victory. Was he the only factor responsible? Of course not. But by far the most pragmatic and simplest way to assure a Gore victory would have been to remove Nader from the ballot in Florida and New Hampshire.

[Boris]

Had Ralph Nader not been on the Florida Ballot, Al Gore would have won the 2000 Presidential Election. Therefore, Ralph Nader is responsible for George W. Bush's victory.  Was he the only factor responsible? Of course not. But by far the most pragmatic and simplest way to assure a Gore victory would have been to remove Nader from the ballot in Florida and New Hampshire.

Had Al Gore not sucked so much as a Presidential candidate, Al Gore would have won the 2000 Presidential Election.  Therefore, Al Gore is responsible for George W. Bush's victory.  Was he the only factor responsible?  Of course not.  But by far the most pragmatic and simplest way to assure a Gore victory would have been to improve Gore's messaging and skill as a campaigner.

(And maybe he shouldn't have come across as such a detestable prick in the debates, either.)

That wouldn't have been the most pragmatic and simplest way to ensure a Gore victory. A change in campaign strategy and candidate personality is far more complex and arduous task than the hypothetical removal of one third party candidate from one state.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I will once the damage that the Bush Administration has done to the world has been rectified. Until then, I prefer to bitch and moan without actually contributing any real solutions to the problem.

[Boris]

That wouldn't have been the most pragmatic and simplest way to ensure a Gore victory. A change in campaign strategy and candidate personality is far more complex and arduous task than the hypothetical removal of one third party candidate from one state.

Had Gore not sighed overdramatically in the first debate, he would have won.  It was certainly more than enough to cost him both Florida and New Mexico.  Is that simple enough?

Meh, not really (Gore won New Mexico, but perhaps you meant New Hampshire?). There's no concrete evidence to indicate exactly how many votes Gore lost by sighing in that debate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that there was a massive trend away from Gore after that debate (unlike Dukakis in the second 1988 debate). Basically, the whole incident was just mocked by late night TV hosts and comedians.

I suppose the easiest way to ensure a Gore victory would have been for Floridans to actually have voted for whom they intended to vote for. Then comes the removal of Nader from the ballot in either Florida or New Hampshire. Then there's a multitude of other factors, such as the campaign strategy and running-mate selection (Bob Graham instead of Joe Lieberman would have been cool).