November 16, 2000

8:57 AM

I know it is cheap and easy to link to Salon, but I imagine this might make interesting conversation.
We can thank Nader and his supporters for the election mess -- and they're not even sorry.
Don't you idiots know the Democratic party owns your votes? Quit being so selfish.
posted by thirteen (46 comments total)

I just wish the fine folks at Salon (insert smirk here) would just own up to the fact that they carry a Buick-sized grudge against Nader and just about anyone who doesn't kowtow to the Gore myth.

I will say this for the editorial: Taylor's right. I'm not even the tiniest bit sorry I voted for Ralph, even though I must be one of his "invisible constituents" since I'm neither white, nor male, nor ecologically conscious.
posted by likorish at 9:07 AM on November 16, 2000

I really tried, but even with Molly Ivins's help, I never managed to convince myself that Dubya was the antichrist. In fact, it may have been all the hand-wringing over Bush that got me sufficiently disgusted with "politics as usual" to vote for Ralph. (By the way, I'm still looking for that bumper sticker.)
posted by harmful at 9:11 AM on November 16, 2000

And "it's got to get worse before it gets better" isn't selfish?
posted by holgate at 9:12 AM on November 16, 2000

My point: I have a lot of problems with the current Labour government. It's done plenty to challenge the welfare state and civil rights that not even the Tories would have considered. It's emasculated its principles to make itself appeal to "middle England". But while they remain electable, I'll keep voting for them, because a government of the centre-left can be lobbied from the left, and a government of the centre-right can't.
posted by holgate at 9:15 AM on November 16, 2000

You can get that sticker, and many fine progressive products besides, at northern sun merchandising. Here's a link
posted by snakey at 9:26 AM on November 16, 2000

I was simply unconvinced, despite all the hysterics (including some from Nader) that Bush was that much worse. BTW, thanks for the link to the sticker; I can always just cross out the "don't".
posted by harmful at 9:31 AM on November 16, 2000

Nader voters wanted to "destroy the village in order to save it"? Because, you know, voting for Nader is the exact moral equivalent of slaughtering a bunch of Vietnamese civilians who you suspect to be communists. Who knows what circle of hell those who actually voted for Bush have condemned themselves to? Probably the dead center, to be gnawed by Satan for all eternity.

The spittle-flecked rantings of crazed Gore supporters aside, I can't imagine that a Bush presidency will be an apocolyptic event. And maybe next time heavy-weight Dems will be a little more inclined to nominate someone like Bill Bradley, who has a little more credibility on the left.
posted by snarkout at 9:38 AM on November 16, 2000

Since the election I've seen the Nader factor as a classic pragmatism vs. idealism issue. In an ideal world, the vote for Nader is the right one (IMHO) because he's close to right on more issues than other candidates. In the real world, however, his candidacy will go down in history as a Quixotic effort that instead of sparking a progressive movement to remake American politics just helped the corporate takeover of the Democratic party. I sure wish Nader would have just run in the primary for the Democrats. Why doesn't it make more sense to re-take the Democratic party from the DLC crowd instead of attempting to cripple the party that is still the lesser of two evils?
posted by norm at 9:51 AM on November 16, 2000

Charles Taylor is an idiot. For proof, read about how he thought The Truman Show was "subversive.". (This article spurred me to write, "The Truman Show, film criticism, and real subversion".)

Anyway, voting for Nader was the single smartest thing a Naderite could have done. After getting 5%, this morass is the best thing that could have happened for the Greens--neither of these goons will have a 'mandate', and it shows the power of small numbers. Even if Dubya wins, his stance will be so crippled (by both the fact he lost the popular vote, and all this wrangling in Florida) that his tenure will likely have little impact.

Lawrence Weschler wrote it best (also in Salon), "What with the spectacularly intricate hydrology of focus groups, tracking polls, sound bites, empty photo ops, targeted political advertising spots and wider, more general media manipulation, with both sides marshaling the identical data and with everything arranged in a near-perfect feedback loop, is it any wonder that by the end of the exercise, we indeed end up at the center of a mathematically precise equilibrium, the dead center, of a near-perfect tie?"

Anyway, keep blaming Nader. There's no such thing as bad publicity.
posted by peterme at 9:58 AM on November 16, 2000

Here's an interesting claim from someone in Italy that when two parties try to combine their votes (e.g. Dems and Greens trying to unite behind Gore), the total number of votes usually ends up being less than either party would have got on their own.

It was proven several times in Italy in subsequent elections that this is
never the case: a coalition composed of a big and a small party *always*
get less votes than the big party by itself (much less the sum). Always.
posted by straight at 9:59 AM on November 16, 2000

Personally, I wish most of the Nader voters had voted for Gore. I also wish that more of the Bush voters had voted for Gore, too. But I, along with other Gore voters, have no particular right to be angry at the Naderites. They looked at their choices, looked at the possible outcomes and the likelihood of each, and made a decision about what they thought best. I can disagree, sure, but if you say to me "I voted for Nader and I'd do it again," there's no particular case I have against you. A lot of Democrats seem to feel insanely betrayed by Nader, as though he owed them something. Which he doesn't.

Of course, people who say "I voted for Nader, but I didn't realize it would matter" deserve to be pimp-slapped.
posted by grimmelm at 10:18 AM on November 16, 2000

Far as I can tell, most of the Nader voters did vote for Gore. His 6% national support was somehow cut in half on election day.

Are we going to have to endure four years of this kind of self-righteous I-told-you-soisms on all sides? Because that'd be reason enough to move somewhere else. If there was anywhere else to go.

I'm with harmful. Blame me - I voted for Nader. I didn't realize it would matter, but I'd do it again.

posted by chicobangs at 11:00 AM on November 16, 2000

[chicobangs] I'm with harmful. "Blame me - I voted for Nader."

Hey, I thought I came up with that one.
posted by daveadams at 12:05 PM on November 16, 2000

I can't imagine that a Bush presidency will be an apocolyptic [sic] event

Well, let's just hope that a Bush presidency is so emasculated that his missile defence programme never sees the light of day, given that it would place my home town, 20 miles from the US early warning stations, straight in the line of fire.

I agree with Lawrence Weschler: neither party was prepared, in the end, to risk putting forward a candidate and a programme that was anything other than anodyne. And Nader certainly enlivened the debate, thankfully. But I'm with norm: the politics of government is the most depressing kind of pragmatism.
posted by holgate at 12:08 PM on November 16, 2000

I personally don't think a vote for Nader for any reason OTHER than than wanting to see him as president can be a good reason. Voting to get that magical 5%, voting against the Democrats or Republicans, i don't think any of those are legitimate reasons. Not to say i can tell someone why and how they should vote, but neither of those particular goals is really served by voting for Nader.

Getting 5% doesn't of itself help any cause. Reform party got matching funds this time and last, and fat lot of good it did them.

The two-party system will NEVER fall as a result of a disenfranchised minority choosing this or that other candidate. As long as the Democrats and Republicans appeal to large swaths of the the elctorate, any other party is a pipe dream. I personally don't think thats a bad thing, but thats how it is.
posted by dcodea at 12:08 PM on November 16, 2000

My bad on the "apocalyptic" typo -- and me a former copy-editor (if a mediocre one). And yes, I think the missile defence program is kaput -- do you think Shrub is going to have the juice to get a technologically-unworkable, START-violating, ruinously-expensive program through Congress? When it gives the opponents of every person who votes for it a chance to blast them for throwing billions of dollars at military contractors to make missiles that can't even hit dummy warheads under controlled conditions?

Jeepers, I hope not.

And I give you the best election commentary I've read this week, Phillip Weiss' piece in the Observer:

The Nader chastisers were always somewhat parental. But, like parents, they just didn’t get it. They imagined that they knew what was most important to us, so they could say that Al Gore was better on those issues. But Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore are hard to tell apart, harder than ever. And what if your issue is corporate influence of the political process? What if you are concerned that all the big media are owned by big corporations, and ideas are marketed like Cheerios?

posted by snarkout at 12:16 PM on November 16, 2000

My bad on the "apocalyptic" typo -- and me a former copy-editor (if a mediocre one). And yes, I think the missile defence program is kaput -- do you think Shrub is going to have the juice to get a technologically-unworkable, START-violating, ruinously-expensive program through Congress? When it gives the opponents of every person who votes for it a chance to blast them for throwing billions of dollars at military contractors to make missiles that can't even hit dummy warheads under controlled conditions?

Jeepers, I hope not.

And I give you the best election commentary I've read this week, Phillip Weiss' piece in the Observer:

The Nader chastisers were always somewhat parental. But, like parents, they just didn’t get it. They imagined that they knew what was most important to us, so they could say that Al Gore was better on those issues. But Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore are hard to tell apart, harder than ever. And what if your issue is corporate influence of the political process? What if you are concerned that all the big media are owned by big corporations, and ideas are marketed like Cheerios?

posted by snarkout at 12:16 PM on November 16, 2000

My bad on the 'apocalyptic' typo -- and me a former copy-editor (if a mediocre one). And yes, I think the missile defence program is kaput -- do you think Shrub is going to have the juice to get a technologically-unworkable, START-violating, ruinously-expensive program through Congress? When it gives the opponents of every person who votes for it a chance to blast them for throwing billions of dollars at military contractors to make missiles that can't even hit dummy warheads under controlled conditions?

Jeepers, I hope not.

And I give you the best election commentary I've read this week, Phillip Weiss' piece in the Observer:

The Nader chastisers were always somewhat parental. But, like parents, they just didn’t get it. They imagined that they knew what was most important to us, so they could say that Al Gore was better on those issues. But Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore are hard to tell apart, harder than ever. And what if your issue is corporate influence of the political process? What if you are concerned that all the big media are owned by big corporations, and ideas are marketed like Cheerios?

posted by snarkout at 12:17 PM on November 16, 2000

Arrgh -- teach me to believe ColdFusion when it claims it can't process the URL. Sigh. Sorry, everyone. (If Matt wants to kill those excess posts, I wouldn't mind a jot.)
posted by snarkout at 12:18 PM on November 16, 2000

Holgate, do you mean the same national missile defense that Gore supports too? "Al Gore supports the development of the technology for a limited national missile defense system that will be able to defend the U.S. against a missile attack from North Korea or Iraq."
posted by harmful at 12:21 PM on November 16, 2000

norm:
Why doesn't it make more sense to re-take the Democratic party from the DLC crowd instead of attempting to cripple the party that is still the lesser of two evils?

Because fighting a powerful enemy on its own turf is always a bad idea. The only way to win against insurmountable odds is to play by different rules, and you can't do that if you're "working from the inside."

dcodea:
As long as the Democrats and Republicans appeal to large swaths of the the elctorate, any other party is a pipe dream.

Do the Democrats and Republicans actually appeal to large swaths of the electorate, or do large numbers of Americans just settle for whichever group looks least likely to destroy their way of life? Do you know anyone who's actually *proud* to be Democrat or Republican - hell, do you know anyone who actually identifies themself as part of either group? As far as I can tell, identifying yourself with a political party went out of style decades ago.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 12:25 PM on November 16, 2000

Ignoring the fact that the missile defense system being proposed doesn't seem to work, I've never seen the usual suspects address the fact that Iraq, Iran, or North Korea could simply put a nuclear weapon in a fishing trawler, sail it over, and blow up New York or San Francisco. It's a boondoggle whose chief benefit to politicians is that it shuts up people attacking you for being soft on defense and makes right-wing pundits get all misty-eyed thinking about Reagan's boondoggle.
posted by snarkout at 12:28 PM on November 16, 2000

(Mars)fighting a powerful enemy on its own turf is always a bad idea. The only way to win against insurmountable odds is to play by different rules, and you can't do that if you're "working from the inside."

All well and good if you buy that the odds are insurmountable. I don't -- no matter how much money corporations pour into the system they still have to convince enough voters to actually vote for their candidates. I don't see why a populist movement to retake the Democratic party is unrealistic. As far as I see it, the really insurmountable odds are that another party can break into an entrenched duopoly of power.

hell, do you know anyone who actually identifies themself as part of either group? As far as I can tell, identifying yourself with a political party went out of style decades ago.

Where do you live??? I work with some people that are hard core Republicans and if a Republican said it it must be true (akin to the 'Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it' phenomenon I hear from fundamentalists). I know one lady who hasn't voted Democratic since she witnessed a crop destruction program to keep prices up -- that was in the early 50s.


posted by norm at 12:57 PM on November 16, 2000

And maybe next time heavy-weight Dems will be a little more inclined to nominate someone like Bill Bradley, who has a little more credibility on the left.

Actually, if Bush wins, the Democrats won't have to do bupkiss for the left. Four years of GOP guvmint and fear of producing another Republican victory will keep the liberals from straying off the reservation in 2004.

I blame the Nader voters for this mess, but I especially blame Nader. I'm with James Carville on this one -- Ralph better hope the two million voters who chose him have more money to donate to his causes than the 40 million plus he just alienated by screwing the Democrats.
posted by rcade at 12:59 PM on November 16, 2000

Actually, if Bush wins, the Democrats won't have to do bupkiss for the left. Four years of GOP guvmint and fear of producing another Republican victory will keep the liberals from straying off the reservation in 2004.

That line is the reason Gore didn't get the Nader votes. Maybe if there had been more talk about those issues instead of a constant reminder of how "evil" Bush is, we wouldn't be facing what we are right now.

I'm tired of hearing how it's Nader's fault. Instead, maybe the Gore campaign should be asking themselves what they did wrong that people didn't feel right voting for him, and try to remedy it for next time.
posted by Andrea at 1:18 PM on November 16, 2000

The Democrats are the alienators here. From pursuing the racist drug war, to shafting labor and environmentalists with the WTO and NAFTA, it's a wonder the democrats have a constituency left to support them!

If the Democrats had actually pursued a progressive agenda for the last 8 years, instead of selling out to big business, they wouldn't be in the mess they're in today.
posted by snakey at 1:20 PM on November 16, 2000

The thing that I'm sick of is the foolish notion that a vote for Nader automatically equals a vote that would have ordinarily gone to Gore.

Perhaps it's fair to say that a "goodly amount" of votes cast for Nader would have ordinarily not been cast for uh, anyone?

Is this remotely possible?

Actually no. Gotta love the absolutism in American politics.
posted by ethmar at 1:27 PM on November 16, 2000

You all must have some bastardy Democrats around you, because the Dems around me are much more disgusted that 49% of the populace voted for Bush than that 3% voted their conscience and went with Nader.

The Dems I know still respect Nader and many wish they had felt confident enough to vote for him. Maybe that's just 'cause I'm in CA.

Nader didn't spoil this election for Gore. Gore lost(?) what ought to have been a sure thing for him. He was VP in the most popular administration in decades, and he STILL couldn't get the vote out? Sad. Then again, why should anyone vote for him? Look at his record. He's practically a Republican himself. The debates were pathetic...

Bush: I believe in preserving the lives of kittens!

Gore: Oh yeah? Well I believe in that too only MORE!

Bush: Plus babies. I'm for babies!

Gore: I'm way more for babies than you are! Look at my record! Babies all over the place!

Bush: Let's kill bad guys!

Gore: I'm all for killing bad guys! Hand me a lethal injection, I'll kill a bad guy now!

etc. etc.

Nigh-identical candidates, nigh-identical vote tallies. Shockola.

I voted for Nader and I'm proud. And after everything the Clinton administration did, I'm not scared of George W. Bush. He'll do the same despicable crap they all do, only he'll mispronounce it. Oh well.
posted by wiremommy at 1:27 PM on November 16, 2000

[rcade] Ralph better hope the two million voters who chose him have more money to donate to his causes

And they will if Bush wins and gets his tax cuts passed! :)
posted by daveadams at 1:34 PM on November 16, 2000

harmful: oh, fuck.

wiremommy: I'd imagine that the Dems look on Bush voters as lost causes. From talking to the few expat Bushies who admit it here in the UK, I can understand why. But there's a constructive debate on the centre-left that doesn't involve being corporate shills, especially at the grass-roots level. (I have plenty to talk about with Lib Dems here: we're often more in agreement than I am with "new Labour". But there's no talking to Tories.)
posted by holgate at 1:45 PM on November 16, 2000

At least when the next Survivor series comes on, Salon can go back to covering that 24/7 and we won't have to read their Nader columns anymore.

Anyway, the article had some good points about Nader, and whoever here mentioned pragmatism vs. idealism got it exactly right, that's exactly what this is about.

Blaming Nader is ridiculous. You can't blame someone for trying to win an election, if you blame Nader, you are saying "I give up on real democracy. Gimme that two-party system forever!" and you might as well pass a law saying that only people who have a really good chance of winning are allowed to run. If you want to blame anyone, blame Bush - if he hadn't run, Gore would have won for sure!
posted by beefula at 1:55 PM on November 16, 2000

Nah, Nader would have beat Gore in a 2 way race.
posted by snakey at 2:14 PM on November 16, 2000

Regarding laws against third parties:

...the Supreme Court ruled that states are not constitutionally required to permit one party's ballot line. That decision, Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, was a setback to minor political parties seeking higher profiles and greater leverage by cross-endorsing a major party's candidate, as frequently occurs in New York.

Chief Justice...Rehnquist's majority opinion said that whatever the merits of fusion tickets, "states also have a strong interest in the stability of their political systems" and were free under the Constitution to decide for themselves that "political stability is best served through a healthy two-party system" at the expense of minor parties' interests.
NYT, 11/13/00, A26

While in theory this country has open politics, the two-party system is as enmeshed and difficult fix as a tick burrowed in an angry dog's hide. There is no fixing this corporate-owned duopoly. They are backed by their respective leadership councils, which serve as fundraising franchises and stumping coordinators. All the politicians — except a notable handful — are allied and committed to bipartisan politics.

The Green Party, the Libertarians, the New Party or any of the others have little chance of moving their agendas locally or nationally, as does any political party without corporate sponsors and media play. I’m a Green, but I’d like to see progress — any progress — to move America out of corporate controlled government.

The events unfolding in Florida are the best possible example of America’s gridlock politics. The duopoly don’t care about the people they govern, they care about the power they hold over them and the benefits it accords them. They will resort to any means to achieve it, at the people’s expense.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 2:54 PM on November 16, 2000

My sixth grade social studies teacher told me how the people vote for president based on who they want. That's what I did, excuse me for voting based on my conscious.
posted by thirdball at 3:43 PM on November 16, 2000

...as opposed to voting unconsciously, due to subliminable political messages.
posted by ethmar at 4:28 PM on November 16, 2000

If I may be so bold as to quote myself on my own weblog:I sleep like a baby at night knowing I didn't vote for either of the two candidate whores who will blow anything that moves for a campaign contribution.Let's also not forget that about half of the people in this country were so disgusted or apathetic that they didn't even bother to vote.Gore apologists that blame Nader for their candidates inadequacies can kiss my liberal white ass!That's all I have to say on the matter.
posted by Mr. skullhead at 6:43 PM on November 16, 2000

Salon is total crap, boycott it! As you all know it's doomed.

It's good to see Democrats upset like this, they've been so corrupt and complacent. They put their success down to running a strong economy. With a strong economy all social problems magically disappear. Instead they have worsened. Let's face it, a trained monkey could preside over an economic boom. In fact one just did.

The viciousness of the attacks are to be expected. Cries of arrogance and selfishness directed at Nader are deliciously ironic. Wailing about "not even being sorry" really breaks me up. No one should feel sorry, so please get over it.

Nader has upset the applecart, that's a good thing.

posted by lagado at 7:43 PM on November 16, 2000

You can't blame someone for trying to win an election ...

Nader had no prayer of winning the election. He never polled higher than 6-7 percent nationally. He said he was running to build a third party, but he campaigned hardest in states where he was least likely to get votes because the race was close, dooming his chances to qualify the Greens for federal matching funds in 2004. He also never actually joined the third party he was allegedly trying to build.

He got 2.6 percent of the vote, which has to be regarded as a dismal failure unless his goal was to defeat Gore. If that's how you folks define success in this election, congratulations -- next time eliminate the middleman and vote directly for the Republican.

Personally, I think Nader's efforts were a failure for the Greens, and the only thing the party can take heart in this year is the fact that 238 Greens ran for municipal office and 15 won. When the Greens put up a presidential candidate in 2004, the party's failure to qualify for matching funds is going to be a significant roadblock to its credibility.

I wouldn't be surprised if this election is also a personal failure for Nader, who has always been more dependent on financial contributions from trial lawyers than he acknowledges. There's a reason Gore had all those folks on his side -- Bush is a huge supporter of tort reform efforts that limit corporate liability and put a cap on the amount a person can be awarded in a lawsuit.

Perhaps it's fair to say that a "goodly amount" of votes cast for Nader would have ordinarily not been cast for uh, anyone?

According to a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll a few days before the election that was cited by The Nation, if Nader wasn't running, 43 percent of his voters would choose Gore, 21 percent Bush and around 21 percent wouldn't vote at all. The 22-percent advantage for Gore would have been more than enough to put him over the top in Florida.
posted by rcade at 7:28 AM on November 17, 2000

I'm pretty sure there was at least that big a difference between the people who polled as being gore supporters before the election, and those who really voted for Nader in the final count. I haven't seen anything to convince me that anyone who wanted Gore in the White House voted for Nader instead.
posted by harmful at 7:55 AM on November 17, 2000

Hell. "polled as being Nader supporters" was what I meant to say.
posted by harmful at 7:57 AM on November 17, 2000

I don’t feel like writing about this anymore. I can still copy+paste, though.

Lightly, loving lifted from the VV.

By August 13, Minnesota Democratic senator Paul Wellstone was telling the Washington Post: "I think the Democratic party has become a party without a purpose, except to win elections. The campaign money chase has seriously diluted our policy purpose, and there is a belief that talking about the poor is a losing strategy. We don't inspire people."

...

Thomas Patterson, director of the Vanishing Voter Project—wrote on the November 8 New York Times op-ed page:

"We tracked citizen knowledge about the candidates' positions on 12 issues. Last weekend, in the campaign's closing days, there was only one position—Al Gore's stand on prescription drugs—on which half or more of the respondents could accurately identify a candidate's stand."

...

As John C. Berg, director of graduate studies in the department of government at Suffolk University in Boston, says:

"In the years before the Civil War, antislavery voters were told they had to vote for the lesser evil—slave-owning Whigs like Henry Clay. They refused, in small but growing numbers.

"The Whigs collapsed, the Republican Party was born, Lincoln became president, and the slaves were freed. Today, anticorporate voters are being handed the same lesser-evil logic. But the sweeping political changes we need will only come when voters refuse this logic, and thereby force the collapse of the two-party monopoly."
posted by capt.crackpipe at 8:01 AM on November 17, 2000

rcade, harmful is right. If your poll numbers are correct, then it looks like all the people who said they would vote for Gore if Nader wasn't running did end up voting for Gore, hence Nader's drop to less than 3% of the vote after polling at 5% or more. If you assume that the remaining Nader supporters in your poll would have done what they claimed on election day had Nader dropped out, Bush would have had a decisive win!
posted by daveadams at 8:23 AM on November 17, 2000

I think you could take any group of Nader supporters -- including the 96,000 folks in Florida who figured out how to use a ballot to choose him -- and if Nader wasn't an option, they would fall out roughly 2 votes for Gore, 1 vote for Bush, and 1 no vote at all.
posted by rcade at 8:33 AM on November 17, 2000

I take issue with Rcade's numbers: in one national poll, (ICR 10/29) Nader had polled at 9% -- about a week before the election. Nader earned that 9% despite being barred from the debates by Gore and the DLC.

Whether Gore was able to strip away most of those votes in the final week by waging a dirty fearmongering campaign against Nader doesn't change that 9%. More importantly, that's 9% for Nader's issues; again, despite his exclusion from the debates.

I think it's fair to say that after 8 years of broken promises and outright betrayal, support for the Democratic Party is soft. If the Dems keep selling out, progressives will start voting green more and more. The Greens demonstrated that they hold the balance of power in this country, and that people want a better choice than Bush or Bush Lite.
posted by snakey at 8:59 AM on November 17, 2000

rcade, my point was this: It's clear that there was some defection amongst Nader supporters who ended up either voting elsewhere or not voting. But my question is did the 2 people who would have voted for Gore had Nader not been in the election actually end up voting for Gore? The Dems were doing a good job at scaring everyone into it.

So if the 96,000 Floridians that did vote for Nader were the ones left over, then they would have been evenly split between potential Bush voters and potential no-voters. So if Nader had dropped out, perhaps Bush would have gained 47,000 votes and had a clear victory in Florida.

Even if you don't buy that all the voters for whom Gore was second choice defected, surely more of them than either the Bush or no-vote categories, right? So the contention that Nader's vote took away from Gore is at least questionable, and you could even analyze it to the point of saying the Nader vote took away from Bush!
posted by daveadams at 10:48 AM on November 17, 2000

Nader had no prayer of winning the election.

This was not apparent until after he failed to get into the presidential debates. That was Ventura's ticket to success, after all, and there's no reason Nader couldn't have used it the same way.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:38 AM on November 17, 2000