Nader Factor

[© tweed]

What if ralphy didn't run?

[© tweed]

What if ralphy didn't run?

Most likely Gore would have won Florida, and thus the election.

Agreed.

[© tweed]

Actually it is far from clear Gore woul have won.

Based on exit polls, If only Bush and Gore were on the ballot in FL, Bush would have won 49% to 48% (2 % not voting, the other 1% lost in the rounding).  This was the result not of Nader voters favoring Bush, but 2% of Gore's voters would have voted for Bush without Nader in the race!  Perhaps the more liberal Nader made Gore seem more of a centrist to the more conservative FL Democrats?

However, the exit polls also showed that Gore was favored by a net 20% of the Nader voters (over Bush and not voting), so perhaps Gore would have won FL if only Gore wasn't running.

See MSNBC for additional polling results:
http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=fl

Even is Gore only gained a net 1% of Nader's votes he would have won Florida.

[© tweed]

Read my last post Zork.

[© tweed]

After months of wrangling with the board, C&S dropped its proposal and took its new warehouse, 300 jobs — and later its entire outfit — to Massachusetts.

A furious Dean publicly criticized the board and the Act 250 process — something no previous governor had done.

In a letter to Dean, environmental groups who opposed the C&S plan said that his excoriation of the board members "encourages the public to believe that politics, not law, is what matters in the protection of the environment."

Dean learned much from the fight, environmentalists and business leaders say. And years later, when Husky came knocking — with promises of 400 jobs — he quietly threw the weight of his office behind securing its business. The secretive plan even had a code name: Operation Big Dog.

With the governor's strong backing, Husky got its permits to locate in a farm field in a matter of days, a process that might have taken months or even years. It was all over before opponents could organize.

As governor and as a presidential hopeful, Dean has made it clear that he believes development and preservation efforts not only can but must coexist.

"We located a big factory … in a farmer's field," he said. "I'm sure [environmental groups] didn't like that. I didn't like that, either. But if it was that or nothing, I wanted the jobs."

If Dean's handling of environmental issues as governor was more complex than he seems to suggest on the stump, even critics praise his record as a conservationist.

"In that respect, he was an exceptional leader," said Bob Klein, executive director of the Nature Conservancy's state chapter.

His major effort came in 1997, when he pushed through a complex move to buy and conserve 133,000 acres owned by a timber company in a rugged area of the state known as the Northeast Kingdom. There remains debate over how much of the land should be open to hunters or snowmobilers, but most everyone considers the deal momentous.

Although known for his fiscal restraint as governor, Dean spent twice as much as federal regulations require on bike paths and sidewalks. He passed a law requiring that products containing mercury be labeled, and he helped create a much-studied program called Efficiency Vermont that uses electricity surcharges to help businesses develop more efficient manufacturing and other processes.

And when Wal-Mart began planning to build stores across Vermont, Dean flew to the company's Arkansas headquarters. "He told them, 'If you want to build your giant stores outside the downtowns, we'll fight you every step of the way,' " said Sinclair. "But if you downsize and come downtown, we're open for business."

Now, rather than sucking business out of the town of Rutland, municipal officials have written their downtown revitalization plan around its smaller, city-center Wal-Mart.

Although few environmentalists welcomed the Wal-Marts, they recognized the inevitability of the retailer's arrival, and some applaud the agreement Dean worked out.

Conservationists also signed on, reluctantly, to a Dean-brokered plan that in the mid-1990s ended a stalemate between some ski resorts and environmental groups over the resorts' desire to pull more water from streams to fuel their snowmaking machines.

Overall, the criticism that continually surfaces about Dean's record — even from some in the business community — is that he never devised a comprehensive stewardship plan for the environment.

"Some could argue that [pleasing no one] meant he was doing the right thing," said Chuck Nichols, senior vice president of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce. "But I don't think that's the case. Instead of having a proactive, visionary approach, [Dean's] was more a reactive, oh-I-got-a-problem approach."

What does that have to do with Nader in 2000?

[© tweed]

Migrendel makes long posts with no spaces in between lines, and he writes the whole thing.

[© tweed]

Migrendel makes long posts with no spaces in between lines, and he writes the whole thing.

That's a good point, quoting long articles shouldn't really count.

there is no way it should count.

[© tweed]

Jravnsbo just took a cheap shot at the AFDNC chairman.  Personal attacks don't win elections, buddy.

[© tweed]

Jravnsbo just took a cheap shot at the AFDNC chairman.  Personal attacks don't win elections, buddy.

Heheheheheheh...

These guys are just too easy.

[© tweed]

no look at the 4 previous posts, you guys didn't say anything.  

Ok and back to Nader, do you think he will run or not?

Yeah, as an idependent.  So he won't be on the abllot in as many sates.  but he has to run because he is an egomaniac.

[© tweed]

no look at the 4 previous posts, you guys didn't say anything.  

Ok and back to Nader, do you think he will run or not?

Not sure, most likely not. There is little too gain for him this time, he made his point in 2000. He is going to threaten to run, and thus force the Dems to worry about his issues. But he won't actually do it, that would just be plain stupid.

What's with the big post-complaints? Is it that harmful to make a few innocent meaningless posts?

I guess jr isn't having a good day today, so he is taking it out on me.  What can I say.

[© tweed]

Nader said he got 38% of his vote from people that said they would have voted Gore, 25% who would have voted Bush and rest from people that would not have otherwise voted.

A 13% net would have thrown the election to Gore.  and there remains no way that 25% of his supporters would have supported Bush.  Mader is a sack of egotistical lies, only a fool would believe him anyway.

That makes me sound like Democrat doesn't it?  

[© tweed]

The point of him running was to hopefully get 5% of the vote in order to get federal funding for 2004.  Guess what?  He didn't get it.  But we have 8 years of GWB thanks to him.

[© tweed]

We're going to lose anyway, nominate Dean.

[© tweed]

Yes please do then the GOP can make big gains iont he senate too !

I don't think the Presidential candidate will make much of a difference in congressional matters.

[© tweed]

I do, they won't support dean and in the last 10-15 years the number of staright ticket voters has increased not declined.

Yes please do then the GOP can make big gains iont he senate too !

I don't think the Presidential candidate will make much of a difference in congressional matters.

Do you have a link supporting that claim?

[© tweed]

Nader is an asshole and an egotistical jerk wrapped in a moron.

[© tweed]

The Green party already does influence a few House races.  PLus Dems continue to blame them instead of listening to them and embracing some of their concerns.

We wouldn't win a nationwide election if we "embraced" the Green's point of view.  

[© tweed]

If Perot cost George H.W. Bush the 1992 race, then Nader gave the 2000 race to his son. I'm not sure actual polling data supports either position but it sure seems to be ingrained conventional wisdom.

We have already defeated the proposition that Perot cost Bush the election.