Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Nader redux

By

Here we go again…the greatest spoiler in history…what kind of vitamins must Ralph Nader take to sustain such a high level of self-absorbency over such a length of time?

What a dilemma for the walk-on-water crowd.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. this year nobody cares.

    <

    p>It is amazing to reflect, though, how much damage Ralph Nader has wrought on this country, and on the world, by way of his little ego trip in 2000.

    <

    p>[That’s your cue, “Nader didn’t cost Gore the election” crowd — have at it! đŸ˜‰ ]

    • Talk about bringing damage to America; there ya go.
      If Nader firebombed Congress, the “damage” wouldnt come anywhere close .. and anyhow, last I checked, in a democracy, getting people to vote for you isnt an entirly evil thing … Must just be me and Oligarchy is the new in thing …

  2.     Everyone goes on about how Nader blew the election in 2000 for Al Gore in Florida. Let’s recap some political history. Nader siphoned off 16,000 or so potential Gore votes in New Hampshire, and Bush won the state by 3/10 of a percent.

    <

    p>   While working for the Democratic Coordinated Campaign down in Virginia, when I saw New Hampshire go red I already knew there was a severe problem even when Florida appeared to be in our column. I had told the Executive Director of the New Hampshire Democratic Party while applying for a Field Coordinator position in August of 2000 that New Hampshire would be crucial in the upcoming election and that they should get volunteers from Massachusetts and other states doing door to door as they did in the Primary. If Ken Robinson had only heeded my advice, we would have a very different world today.

    <

    p>Respectfully Submitted,
    Sincerely,
    Wayne Wilson
    Roslindale

    • There were TONS of canvassers in New Hampshire before the general election.  So many, in fact, that voters put signs on their doors asking us not to canvas them.  (MoveOn and Dem. Party were not allowed to coordinate, so people heard from more than one Kerry-supporting organization.)

      <

      p>I’m sure you do personally have the power to transform the world, however, you political demi-god, you.  đŸ˜‰

      • Which was totally different than 2004.  Gore did not have much of a campaign up in NH during the general election in 2000.  I had friends in Massachusetts who were called on or about the day of the general election to go up to NH to help out.  It was a scramble that the Gore campaign lost and, as a result, we lost the election.    

      • The person who responded after you had it right. There was not any coordinated door to door canvassing in 2000 when it could have counted. I wouldn’t trade New Hampshire for Iowa and New Mexico like Kerry did. Anyway, I wasn’t talking about the 2004 debaucle anyhow.

        <

        p>Sincerely,
        Wayne Wilson

  3. This news has forced me out of hiatus as a blogger. WTF??!!? And I thought no one had a bigger ego than the members of the Bush administration. What exactly is Nader trying to accomplish besides pushing Ralph Nader?

    <

    p>Well one thing he has accomplished–he’s going to be remembered as an egotistical idiot rather than a crusader for consumer safety. That’s just great. Yup.  

  4. Nader really messed around with the Greens in 2004, and the party got so fed up with his waffling that they nominated another candidate.  At the time, Nader reacted by sniping about the Greens.  Are they supposed to just welcome him back now?  It seems that there are better ways to build a party in the US than turning it over every 4 years to a do-nothing Andy Rooney clone.

    • Actually, I believe Nader ran independently in 2004 because a lot of Greens wanted it that way.  Before he decided to run he held a few exploratory committee meetings with local organizers and activists, and I was at the one in Boston.  I was there with a few Deanies to try to get him to endorse Dean or say that he wouldn’t run if Dean were nominated (this was… December 2003, I think).  None of our reasoning seemed to appeal to him – though he delay his announcement for nearly two months after he said he’d make it, until a few days after Dean dropped out, which I don’t think was a coincidence.

      <

      p>However, some appeals that he did seem to take a lot of interest in were from some Green candidates for office and recent candidates, who said that if Nader ran as a Green it would generate hostility towards Green candidates at all levels, and hurt their chances of winning local office, because they depended on votes from Democrats and independents to win any election.

      <

      p>I left that meeting with a sinking feeling that he had already decided to run, a slight shred of hope that we might’ve gotten him to rethink it (but it was a very slight shred), and a strong feeling that he was seriously considering not running as a Green, so as to avoid hurting downticket candidates.

      • Nader was in, then out, then in.  He was too late to get on the ballot, but pushed for delegates to the Green national convention to vote “uncommitted” to clear the way for him.  Didn’t work…the majority voted for Cobb instead.

        <

        p>I haven’t heard anything about Nader helping build the Green Party.

  6. They should put Ralph Nader in a public pillory in the middle of Baghdad, with a sign that says, “He put George W. Bush in the White House.”

    <

    p>I think an hour would do.

    • first, joking about violence is never funny.

      <

      p>second, no one should be pilloried, literally or figuratively, for legitimately taking part in the american democratic process.

      <

      p>third, nader would have had no effect on the ’04 election if half of the electorate hadn’t voted for bush.  if you want to shame anyone, you need to shame the 62,040,606 people who cast ballots for bush.

      • Maybe just beaten soundly about theb face and neck.

        <

        p>Or maybe caused to drive exceedingly fast such that he rear-ends a Prius, while driving a Corvair.

      • Perhaps more than a taste.

        <

        p>And in 2004, Nader had already done the damage he could do. It was in 2000 that he doomed our nation, focusing his campaign on Florida in the last 3 days.

        • right you are, it is 2000, not 2004 that was the crucial year.  so allow me to restate

          <

          p>third, nader would have had no effect on the 2000 election if almost half of the electorate hadn’t voted for bush.  if you want to shame anyone, you need to shame the 50,456,002 people who cast ballots for bush.

          • 95,000+ Floridians cast their votes for Nader, believing his claim that there was no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties (the same line he uses today).  

            <

            p>In 2004 Nader running again on his same claims received 32,971 of the vote, a drop of over 60,000 votes.

            <

            p>Yes, of course you’re right Laurel, the people who knowingly voted for Bush are primarily responsible for his election in 2000 (that and the US Supreme Court) but there is no way to ignore the clear impact Nader had in siphoning off voters from Gore.  By 2004 Florida voters (and voters nationwide) had figured out that Nader was wrong on one clear and important issue – there is a difference between the parties – and Nader’s support dropped 60,000+ votes in Florida alone.  That’s the anecdotal evidence, from the voters themselves.

            <

            p>What’s irritating to me about Nader is that he seems in absolute denial that his candidacy with its claims that there was no difference between the parties in 2000 had any impact on that election whatsoever.  Not even marginally. Perhaps 538 Florida voters who voted for him in 2000, who would have otherwise voted for Gore, should send him a note.  

            • that he’s even bothering again.  i completely support his right to do so, but i really wonder what he hopes to accomplish.  i can see even less reason voting for him now than i did in 2000.  we can only hope that pat buchannon runs again, or ron paul peals off into an indy run so that dem voters lost to nader will be balanced by repub voters lost from mccain.

              • You forgot the self-important, self-promoting, xenophobic bag of exploding gas, Ladies and Gentlemen I present, the weirdly now red-headed, Lou Dobbs.

                <

                p>Always love your thoughts, Laurel.

          • People who voted for Bush presumably thought Bush would be a better President than Gore.  I don’t think that this is a good description of Nader voters.  Instead, Nader voters thought Bush the equivalent of Gore, because that is what Saint Ralph said, and says.

            <

            p>The trouble is, that when he said these things, he was demonstrating himself to be either (i) stupid, or (ii) a liar.  And Nader isn’t stupid.

            <

            p>Therefore, it is a 100% fair statement that Ralph Nader is responsible for Bush’s election in 2000.

            • how do you know what nader voters thought?  did it ever occur to you that some people may have voted for him because they wanted to shine a light on the policies he stood for?  like, DUH!  your blanket treatment of all nader voters as cult zombies is really offensive.

      • That instead of stupid 3 month jail terms that cost the taxpayers money or other pointless punishments, small crimes and stuff like that should be punished by pillory in the public square.  Stuff like minor shoplifting can be punished with simple stocks.  

        <

        p>Oh sure, get caught with some crack and you go on probation, thats great…but what if you knew you’d get the stocks in the middle of town?  I think it would work better…but only one way to find out…

    • Nader said there was no difference between the Democrats and Republicans, and enough people in NH and FL believed him to turn the election from Gore to Bush.

      <

      p>If you can tell me that Gore would have lied to start the war in Iraq, go ahead and chastise me.  If not, I contend Nader shares the responsibility for  misadventure of George W. Bush and the war in Iraq.

      <

      p>Nader should be begging us for forgiveness, not mounting another presidential campaign.

      • add to the 50,456,002 people who voted for bush the 2,882,955 people who voted for nader.  hold them responsible for their votes.  or is that not as convenient as using nader as a whipping boy?

        <

        p>but i don’t think it is fair to take any of the to task for what happened after.  because hind sight is great, isn’t it pablo?  because we all knew that george bush and his administration would kill the constitution and start an illegal war, didn’t we?  yeah, right.  sure.

        <

        p>blaming one candidate for the victor’s unforeseen crimes is so pathetic that i am shocked to see you use that ploy.  is there no sense of personal responsibility in your corner of the democratic party?

        <

        p>and fyi, i voted for gore.

        • The war was approved by both houses of Congress, including a majority of the Democrats in the Senate — the house charged with primary responsibility for foreign relations under the Constitution.

          <

          p>Bush arguably has acted against the principles of the Constitution in other areas (the whole “enemy combatants” business is a good candidate, for example), but the invasion of Iraq, at least so it seems to me, was properly approved, according to the spirit at least, of Constitutional procedures. The whole country — insofar as we all are part of a community under our Constitution — is responsible for this war.  

          • he killed the constitution to clear the way for war, but i can see how what i wrote could be read that way.  i meant he has done two majorly hideous things
            1.  killed the constitution (a work in progress – death by a thousand cuts)
            2.  lied to get a war on open new markets for government contractors.

      • that Nader cost Gore Florida and threw the electoral votes to Bush.  

        <

        p>But I hold Bush and the members of Congress who exercised their constitutional powers and voted to authorize the tragic and unnecessary war in Iraq responsible for those 3972 deaths.

    • But the principle is in order, and maybe with the original stone top knots the effect would have been closer.

      <

      p>Maybe they could put Nader in a giant Pillsbury dough-boy-esque fat suit, along with a helmet, in his Baghdad pillory so that people there could demonstrate their feelings toward the man, without actually hurting him physically.

      <

      p>Or maybe they should just do that to kick off the Denver convention. I suspect it would make compelling television. … He rises up on an elevator through the stage, under a spotlight, dressed in his helmet and fat suit, chained perhaps ala King Kong, and the crowd of Democrats …

  9. This time, I’m not waiting for something bad to happen.  If I see someone stumping for Ralph Nader, I’m pushing that person in front of a subway train, or harming him/her physically in some fashion.  I’m dead serious.  Be advised.

  10. Democrats have to get over Nader whining.  I am not happy about Bush either, but put blame where blame is due.  Al Gore was a terrible candidate in 2000 and Kerry was worse candidate in 2004.  Both ran horrible campaigns, Kerry against the worst sitting president in U.S. history – and lost.  This is not Nader’s fault.   Tens of MILLIONS of REGISTERED DEMOCRATS voted for BUSH both times.  

    <

    p>Where was Kerry contesting the Ohio results in 2004? MIA, that’s where, the Greens and Libertarians filed for a recount.

    <

    p>You can continue whining about Nader if you want to, but at least realize the following (from http://www.gp.org):

    <

    p>The Supreme Court Spoiled:

    <

    p>Al Gore won the 2000 election. George W. Bush became President when a biased US Supreme Court allowed election manipulation by Florida Republicans.

    <

    p>Al Gore Spoiled:

    <

    p>Gore ran a weak campaign with no clear message. He failed to defeat Bush in the debates and even lost his home state of Tennessee. Millions of Democrats voted for Bush compared to the few hundred thousand who voted for Nader.

    <

    p>Democratic Senators Spoiled:

    <

    p>When the Black Caucus challenged Bush’s election victory in January 2001, not one Democratic Senator stood up in support. Senate Democrats failed to push for an investigation of the Florida vote debacle.

    <

    p>The Democratic Party Spoiled:

    <

    p>For many years, Democrats never objected when officials removed African American and other voters from the voter rolls in Florida and other states. Why didn’t the Democrats sue when 90,000 Florida voters were disqualified earlier in 2000? Why were Democrats (including Gore) silent about disqualified votes in the weeks after the election?

    <

    p>There’s a cure to the entire “spoiler” argument – Instant Run Off or rank choice voting.  Yet, you never hear Democrats at high levels of government talk about it.  

    <

    p>In 2000 Nader wasn’t even allowed in the room, never mind the stage of the presidential debates.  That’s not democracy and anyone who defends that has to find themselves defending things waterboarding and wiretapping.  Until this country has real elections, real debates and real democracy, I hope Ralph keeps running….and I’m not even voting for him this time.

    <

    p>

    • You lost me in that last paragraph

      <

      p>”In 2000 Nader wasn’t even allowed in the room, never mind the stage of the presidential debates.  That’s not democracy and anyone who defends that has to find themselves defending things waterboarding and wiretapping.  Until this country has real elections, real debates and real democracy, I hope Ralph keeps running….and I’m not even voting for him this time.”

      <

      p>So, if I think someone has not earned a seat at the debate table I must be for waterboarding and wiretapping? That’s a leap.

      <

      p>Also..here’s a FYI: Six months after the 2000 election a conglomeration of media (including the NYT) went down to Florida and recounted the votes. No matter how they counted them, Bush won. The decision to halt the recount by SCOTUS may have been a bad decision, but it did not effect the outcome.

      <

      p>As for “real democracy”, could you give us an example of which country you would emulate?

      • Actually, wrong.  The media recount showed conclusively that Gore won Florida.  But in order to avoid making that the story, they tried very hard to cast it in other terms, and they did so by showing that based on some of the counting standards that people were using, if the specific recounts that were blocked had gone through, Bush would still have won.  This does show that had the Supreme Court allowed the recounts to continue, Bush would likely still have won.  However, this is due to bad counting standards and partial recounts.  The one counting standard under which Gore would have won, according to the raw data supplied by the newspapers, was the “intent of the voter” standard that was actual Florida law & precedent and should have been what Gore pursued statewide.  Furthermore, they completely left aside the two biggest chunks of votes Gore lost:
        – the Butterfly Ballot, which Gore’s lawyers let be rather than ask for a statistical adjustment (for which there was precedent)
        – the giant, sleazy voter purge list

        <

        p>Anyway, based on the media’s numbers, it is absolutely clear that more people in Florida voted for Gore than for Bush.  It’s just likely that the recounts then in progress wouldn’t have come up with all those votes.

  11. While my first thought was Ralph go away. No one forced anyone to vote for him back in 2000. Had Gore run a better campaign and run on the successes of the previous 8 years rather than run away from them then Nader’s numbers would not have mattered. While it may have been close in Florida, had Gore done better in some of the other closer states the supreme court would have never had thier opportunity.  

    • Because it’s just as easy to turn your statement around: “Had Nader pulled out and thrown his support to Gore, it wouldn’t have mattered that Gore lost a bunch of other states he should have won.”

      <

      p>Nader was a necessary, though not sufficient, factor in Bush being named president.  No Nader = President Gore.  Them’s the facts.

      • That’s not entirely clear.

        <

        p>For one thing, exit polls and statistical analysis show that in most swing states, most people who wanted to vote for Nader but preferred Gore over Bush voted for Gore, so much so that Nader may have pulled almost as many Bush voters as Gore voters.  Given the fiasco on Florida, it’s hard to say whether Nader swung it.  It is pretty clear that Nader-Gore voters did swing New Hampshire, which would have been enough for a narrow Gore win even without Florida…

        <

        p>… but there’s the added factor that it is now well established that Nader’s campaign did make Gore’s less lame.  Gore’s campaign made a strategic decision to be less lame and a little more left specifically because of Nader’s challenge.  If this small shift in message worked to gain Gore more voters, it’s very very hard (impossible) to ever know whether that gained him more than he lost to Nader in NH.

        <

        p>”No Nader = President Gore” is a possibility with reasonable arguments in favor, but definitely not a “fact”.  It might be false.

      • Where is the responsibility of the electorate here? It is not Nader’s fault that enough people saw no difference between Gore and Bush to vote for him.

        <

        p>The differences were pretty obvious to alot of people so if the electorate is going to be so out of touch to not be educated on the candidates when has it become the responsibility of the candidates to simplify the choice for the voter?

        <

        p>Fact is people voted for Nader and were either clueless or could care less about the impact Bush would have. That is not Nader’s fault. It is either Gore’s fault because he didn’t educate the electorate sufficiently on the differences or the voter who was so checked out that they couldn’t see any difference when they checked the box.

        <

        p>Those are the facts. Nader didn’t force on voter to vote for him. With free choice comes responsibility.

Archives