It might very well be true that had Nader not run in 2000, Gore (who I reluctantly voted for) probably would have won. But let’s be real here. Nader earned his votes fair and square. We can whine about the “spoiler effect” all we want, but the reality of the matter is that Democrats are no more entitled to the votes of Greens than Republicans are to the votes of Republicans.

Democrats and liberals can criticize Nader all they want, but one has to wonder who TRULY has the high ground. On the most important issue of the last six years (the Iraq War), Nader was right, while both Kerry and Edwards were wrong.

Democrats and liberals should stop whining about Nader and focus on building a poltical party with a coherent political platform.

Nader is not some evil Gore destroyer, but just stupid and egotistical for not working within the system he is given. What is his goal in running? If he wishes mearly to encourage acceptence of enivronmental issues and reigning in corporate profits, well I think he has gotten some of what he wanted in the Dems over the past 7 years. If he wishes to see policies more in line with his philisophical position his best chance is to stay out. There is no doubt that a person who votes green is more likely to vote D than R. Maybe he’s trying to change the voting system to be more 3rd party friendly by causing, or atleast precieveing to have caused, one presidential voting disaster after another? Sound crazy to me.

Look at the Santorum Senate race. Santorum knew he was behind Casey in the polls, and so actually supported the Green candidate to draw votes away from Casey, the Democratic candidate. That to me, indicates that Santorum knew the Green candidate could help him.

The media has been full of the phrases “The Decider,� “The Decision Maker� — now brace yourself because “The Spoiler� may be back again.

Feels like a Batman movie.

And more importantly, just because someone voted for Nader it doesn’t follow that they would have voted for Gore or Kerry, if at all.

But speaking of politicians who are incapable of compromise, one need not look too much further than the current occupant of the White House.

I would agree that Gore was not a stellar candidate in 2000-but he would be President today if the SCOTUS had not stepped in and overruled the Florida court.

Ow… so it’s not because of Nader?

O, wait:

There is no doubt in my mind that if Nader had not run, or the SCOTUS had allowed the state court to decide its own result, Gore would have been the victor.

It still is…

Look, Kim, you don’t seem to understand. You say that Gore lost because of – among other reasons – Nader. That is not true. How do you know that those people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore? Perhaps a lot of them would not have voted at all if Nader hadn’t participated? Isn’t that a fair option?

And… It’s not Nader’s fault, it is Gore’s fault that those people did not vote for Gore: Gore, seemingly, could not convince them that he was the right man for the job.

This displaced victim mentality is very annoying.

MvdG-I would agree that Gore was not a stellar candidate in 2000-but he would be President today if the SCOTUS had not stepped in and overruled the Florida court. The vote in the court was along ideological (conservative/moderate liberal lines) and I have read that it was very politicized. There is no doubt in my mind that if Nader had not run, or the SCOTUS had allowed the state court to decide its own result, Gore would have been the victor.

If major party candidates are so worried about a “spoiler effect� by an independent candidate, perhaps they’d do well to pay attention to what that candidate has to say that’s resonating with the public.

Exactly DJ. The more people vote for, say, Nader, the more the ruling parties have to pay attention and might be inclined to change some of their policies / views.

And, o, the Democrats did not lose because of Nader, they lost because of themselves.

They were not the victim. They simply weren’t good enough.

If major party candidates are so worried about a “spoiler effect” by an independent candidate, perhaps they’d do well to pay attention to what that candidate has to say that’s resonating with the public. I would love to see a viable third party in the US, or the total collapse of the party system for that matter.

The US is not really geared for third party candidacies. They usually end up with the result that those who supported the third party candidate, desired least. Our elections are especially vulnerable to this more recently, as we have had a 50/50 electorate in the last several presidential elections.

Can they be blamed for that? Should one blame them for a victory of one’s political opponent? Of course not: they vote who they want to vote for.

In fact, I’d say, if more people would vote like that, America would have a strong 3rd party instantly.