Nader Factor

[Gustaf]

What if ralphy didn't run?

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

[Gustaf]

What if ralphy didn't run?

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

Agreed.

....I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with you both!

It's nice isn't it? You should maka a habit out of it!

[Gustaf]

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

What you have to keep in mind are the kind of errors which occur when you have such small groups in a poll. Occasionally people give messy answers. I know this b/c I know people who work with polls. Some institutes use double questions, and can then see that some people might first state they are males and then that they are females or something similar, and then they are leaved out. It seems unlikely that Gore voters would have gone for Bush without Nader it doesn't make much sense to me. Is there a logical explanation?

[Gustaf]

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?

He wanted the spot light of making the longest post ever on the board.

He has won that many, many times...

Hang on, RP did a multi-post thing about extremists somewhere. That was REALLY, REALLY long.

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

Maimi do you ever leave this forum, go out get some air its good for you.  Been posting some but I do take a break, everytime I come in your here.

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.

Maybe he likes it?

[Gustaf]

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

Heheheheheheh...

[Gustaf]

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?

[Gustaf]

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.

What do you mean, "Nader said"? What is he basing it on?

[Gustaf]

If it's Nader's, or the greens, own polling it could easily be biased. (I am not challenging the numbers, they look reasonable, just that I'm always sceptical about people making their own polls, something I have learned by experience). Nader has to show that he cost Gore the election, that's the only way he can black-mail the Democrats.  

He said that on C-Span this morning from polling they did on election day 2000.

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.

What do you mean, "Nader said"? What is he basing it on?

[Gustaf]

If it's Nader's, or the greens, own polling it could easily be biased. (I am not challenging the numbers, they look reasonable, just that I'm always sceptical about people making their own polls, something I have learned by experience). Nader has to show that he cost Gore the election, that's the only way he can black-mail the Democrats.  

He said that on C-Span this morning from polling they did on election day 2000.

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.

What do you mean, "Nader said"? What is he basing it on?

So you'd rather have someone against them making all the polls today?

I'm not sure what you mean...
When a party or candidate conducts a poll and it gives a result that is beneficial to said party or candidate, I would be sceptical. Is that weird?

The best thing would of course be unbiased, objective institutions conducting polls.

[Gustaf]

If it's Nader's, or the greens, own polling it could easily be biased. (I am not challenging the numbers, they look reasonable, just that I'm always sceptical about people making their own polls, something I have learned by experience). Nader has to show that he cost Gore the election, that's the only way he can black-mail the Democrats.  

He said that on C-Span this morning from polling they did on election day 2000.

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.

What do you mean, "Nader said"? What is he basing it on?

So you'd rather have someone against them making all the polls today?

I'm not sure what you mean...
When a party or candidate conducts a poll and it gives a result that is beneficial to said party or candidate, I would be sceptical. Is that weird?

The best thing would of course be unbiased, objective institutions conducting polls.

..that did come out kind of weird.  But what I meant to say, was this:  even though a Party conducts it's own polls, I would agree that's biased.  But say the Republican Party conducted a poll on the Democratic Party, wouldn't you say that's going to be biased as well?

I do agree with you though, the best way is for a 3 Party to conduct polls of each, being moderate of course.

Oh, well, that would be equally biased, I didn't mean to imply that...

[Gustaf]

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?  

Nader has to make people believe he affected outcome. I thought that was the whole point of him running?

[Gustaf]

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.

I thought the point was to force the Dems to take care of the environment, lean more towards him.

[Gustaf]

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.

I thought the point was to force the Dems to take care of the environment, lean more towards him.

That's, of course, an interesting point. Do parties want power or influence?  You'd think the survival instinct is the most powerful of the two. I think parties are willing to sell their soul in exchange for their existence.  So, I'd say that the Greenies care more about having the party be a lasting entity than having the Dems absorb their ideas.

You're right about the parties, I was more thinking about Nader personally. But they don't really exist anyway, do they? The only thing they can really hope for is to get people to accept their ideas. Now Nader can say, "look, if you don't run as environamentalists, a green candidate will run and cist you the election". The greens couldn't accomplish much anyway, could they?