1. Among his comments:

   “Nor does a third party or independent candidacy pose a threat, given the winner-take-all, two-party system.”

   Depends upon how you define “threat,” Ralphie. Florida, 2000, for instance.

   What a self-absorbed blowhard.

2. The Consortium of News Organizations that recounted all the Florida presidential votes from November 2000 found that if all Florida votes had been recounted, overvotes and undervotes alike, Gore would have carried Florida. This is documented in many newspapers dated November 12, 2001. I have kept the New York Times from that date because so few people know this. Gore only asked for recounts of the undervotes, and in only four counties. He should have asked for a complete state recount.

3. As Richard points out, Gore apparently would have won Florida (and therefore the nation) in an honest count of all Florida votes, Nader notwithstanding.

   Beyond that, it is not credible for Democrats to blame Nader for “stealing” Gore votes. Simply put, Nader’s votes were Nader’s. If those voters had wanted to vote for Gore (or even to “vote strategically”–that is, hold their nose and vote for Gore), they would have voted for Gore. The theft charge is as presumptuous as it was in 1992, when Republicans claimed that Perot had elected Clinton.

   One other thing: If Gore had taken New Hampshire or his home state of Tennessee or any one other Bush state, he wouldn’t have needed Florida.

   It is possible to conclude that the nation would have been better off under eight Gore years than under eight years of Bush 2 without laying responsibility for the 2000 result at Nader’s doorstep.

4. Apart from the fact that he wasn’t George W. Bush, did anybody really even like Al Gore at all in 2000? Gore seemed like such a bum. At the time Nader was making more noise about Global Warming – an issue that Gore seemed to have run away from. Gore’s also the guy who championed record label censorship in the 80s. Gore kind of sucks.

5. Approval Voting for executive/judicial offices.

   Vote for 1 or more, highest win.

   2000 — leftwing folks could vote for Nader and Gore and could have been happy.

   Will some Prez candidate MORON in 2012 shoot off his/her mouth and cause Civil WAR II to happen ???

   Stay tuned.

6. 2 –

   If Nader had not been in the race there would not have been a need for a recount at all. This is an old argument, of course, but it wouldn’t have come up at all if Nader could contain his consuming vanity.

   4 – The Gore you’re talking about who championed record label censorship was not running for president in 2000. She was his wife. But you’re right…Gore failed on the “likeability” test.

   Tell me – when your child needs surgery, do you choose the surgeon on the basis of who you’d rather hoist beers with, or the one is is most qualified to do the job?

7. #6 “Ralphie”, “consuming vanity”, “self-absorbed blowhard”. Yep. You liberal Democrats are so much more mature than the Nader voters.

   I at least give you credit for admitting that “Gore failed on the “likeability” test.” Most of the Nader bashing crowd fails to mention that Clinton won the popular vote by 8.5% in 1996 and Gore only won by 0.5% in 2000 in spite of lower unemployment than in 1996.

8. Tom Y…So would you say that Gore’s 500,000 popular votes more than Bush is insignificant?

   I think I know who the blowhard is.

9. @6 In 2000 every single Presidential candidate on the Florida ballot covered the spread between Bush and Gore.

   See: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

   You seem to be asking for the exclusion of all-but-the-duopoly from the November ballot.

10. #8 It’s not insignificant in absolute terms, just relative to Clinton’s victory in 1996. Gore’s popular vote victory should have given him the Presidency, but the Electoral College is a relic from the days when state legislatures appointed electors.

11. Pingback: Digest for 4/28 | Stuck in a Digital-Haze

12. #1, #6, Ballot Access News seems to me to be an unlikely place to get a hearing for your argument, which as far as I can tell boils down to, “We have a two-party system. Just live with it.”

13. #2 That is why States should implement runoff for presidential electors.

14. Little if any commentary so far on what Nader actually wrote in the article. My take on it is that he was as critical, or almost so, of Obama and the Democrats as of the Republicans– and certainly critical of the engineered duopoly that so limits democratic choice.

    I have a hunch that Donald Trump, who is being shunned by mainstream Republicans for his embrace of birtherism, will at some point announce as an independent candidate, Perot style. His first trial balloon last year was just that. I keep thinking of his comment the other day that “you will be very, very surprised at the announcement I make.” Process of elimination: no one will be “very, very surprised” if he 1. declares as a Republican or 2. withdraws from the race.

15. 12 –

    My argument was stated pretty clearly, I think. It is that Ralph Nader is a self-consumed, egotistical blowhard, and he would be so even if he ran as a Republican or a Democrat. Your argument, on the other hand, seems to be that voting for any third party candidate, regardless of his qualifications or temperment, is better than voting for one of the “duopoly” candidates. Good conscience and all of that. Well, congratulations. You got us Bush, but you did indeed keep your precious conscience clear.

    Maybe in 2012 you’ll get to vote for a stalk of broccoli.

16. At least Gore is correct regarding climatic change, right? Or is he wrong? He says it was human-caused, not simply Earth’s ordinary cycle over 1000’s of years. Ya think?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.