Nader

[drydem]

Alright, I am sick of people blaming Ralph Fucking Nader for Bush's presidency. Dan Savage did it in his most recent column and I hate it. Here's the deal. Sure, if Nader hadn't run in Florida, then Gore would proably have won. However, if Bush had murdered somebody on national television a few days before the election Gore would probably have won also. Here's where Gore lost.
In filing charges before the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, Gore had a few options for what he could demand. He could have demanded a recount of the counties where he had a lead(which would have been a sure victory if he won the case, but which left him open to equal protection arguments) or he could have demanded a recount of the entire state(which may have made things uncertain in terms of victory, but which avoided the equal protection clause on a state level). He chose the former, and the high court(assuming it was not entirely partisan, which I am dubious about) ruled against him, precisely based on the equal protection clause.
In all the recounts done by independent organizations, including full state recounts, without hanging chads, Gore won. So, really, if Gore had taken the moral high ground and asked for a full recount, he could have won, both the Supreme Court case and the Electoral College. Sure, there would have been a period of doubt, but our government could have withstood that.
So, to sum up, Nader did not lose the fucking election. Gore lost it because he played partisan rather than playing fair. If he had played fair, chosen to try and ascertain the will of the american people instead of just trying to win, we wouldn't be in a kakistocracy right now.

Comments

Not that people blaming Nader isn't stupid, but...

[fallen-scholar.livejournal.com]

There's a flaw or two in the persecution of your argument.

1) Ruinious Phiolosophy: Nader's platform was built around the theory that there was no viable difference between DNC and GOP. It doesn't take much time to see that as a falsehood. So Nader threw the election for Gore by disenheartening voters and lowering their turnout.

But that's pretty weak, because it presuposes voter logic. However, it does fit into the grander point:

2) Not Florida: Florida is easy to focus on, because it's a weak link. But what about Missouri? Wisconsin? Tenassee? States where it was close, not as close as Florida, but close. If all those people in all those places then Voted for Gore, would he have taken an extra state, thus making all such points moot?

And as another note, I think that I, had I been in Gore's counsel, would have likewise suggested a recount of the relevant counties and not the whole state. These were places where he could expect to win and didn't...the others were places he didn't always expect to win and there was the real chance that he could lose more votes in a statewide review than he could gain. Selecting a few counties lowered the rates of unpredictiblity.

As it stands, the most insigtful comment I've heard regarding the topic came from a statician, who noted that the degree of difference inbetween the votes in Florida is under the statistical difference for error tolerance (an apt, if grim, counter to point one).

Re: Not that people blaming Nader isn't stupid, but...

[drydem.livejournal.com]

I think the last point shows how we need things like run-off elections in this country.
And while it was a solid legal decision for someone who wants to win, it was not the moral high road. I think more people should take the moral high road. We may live in a modern world, but if we are cynical about the direction of things, then things will only go downhill.

[gollumgollum.livejournal.com]

regardless of the above, what lost Florida for Gore are the number of Democrats who voted for *Bush* (i believe, although i can't cite sources, that the number was closer to 10%). Nader was just a better scapegoat.

Wrong Again, Marge

[bigsnob.livejournal.com]

Your logic is specious. Yes, Nader wasn't the ONLY reason Gore lost the election, but he was ONE of the reasons, and one of the most statistically significant. If you truly think Nader wasn't a de facto Bush-booster, then what do you make of Republicans' efforts to get him on the ballot in swing states this year?

I think a little Nader-anger is justified, especially because:

(1.) He supposedly supports progressive policies, and yet he refuses to take any responsibility for contributing to the victory of one of the most REgressive administrations in years.

(2.) He's witnessed the past 4 years and is willing to do it again.

The first might be forgivable if not for the second. Also, he slams the candidates for their corporate contributions, but I could send you some articles about some of Nader's downright evil contributors in this election that would make your head spin. If he can no longer run as the "principled" candidate, then why is he running at all.

For the record-- I think that a multi-party America can only be for the good, and I would vastly prefer proportional representation to our current system. But that's not the world we live in, at present, and Nader's (sullied... you really should read some of these articles) form of idealism IS, in this particular situation, a force for bad.

Re: Wrong Again, Marge

[drydem.livejournal.com]

While I understand that Nader was a factor, and a statistically significant one, and I don't remotely support his current bid, I still think that Nader-bashing is misdirected. Democrats should be angry at the Republican Supreme Court for overreaching their Constitutional authority, Democrats should be angry at Al Gore for not fighting harder, Democrats should be angry at the systematic voter fraud that prevented many black voters from accessing the polls.
But blaming the entire election on Nader is fucking misdirected and is turning on potential allies rather than actual opponents.
Aaron MacGruder said at one point that the Democrats are such losers that they were able to lose an election that they won.

Re: Wrong Again, Marge

[bigsnob.livejournal.com]

Oh there's plenty of anger to go around. I'm angry at every one of those things. I'm most angry about the supreme court and the disenfranchisement of black voters (similarly, I'm furious about Jeb Bush failing to recuse himself from election reforms, despited an obvious conflict of interes). I also believe the following to be true:

1.) No-one, not even Dan Savage blames the _entire_ election debacle on Nader, though they may be mad that the margin that he did sway probably helped us get into that Florida mess (not that it was his fault mind you). Still, he helped put us where we are today, even if it was unintentional... which I doubt. He knows he's a "spoiler."

2.) Ralph Nader started being a potential ally long ago and is following his own weird agenda. This is especially clear with the hindsight of the last four years and his decision to run again/ the way he's decided to frame his campaign.

"Aaron MacGruder said at one point that the Democrats are such losers that they were able to lose an election that they won."

I like Aaron MacGruder, but the irony of that is he's perpetuating the Democratic stereotype of loser-dom that he's satirizing. What I like about the Democratic party is that we're open to nuance and subtlety, but what seems to go along with that (and I don't know why, because it doesn't have to) is a negative fatalism. What we need to do, if we want to win, is to band together behind a unified party. That's where the Republicans always have us beat, as monumentally vexing as it is-- they're on message. Even if that message is evil and wrong. They spend enough time calling us losers without us doing the same thing to ourselves.